Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1999, 5 - SIGN AMORTIZATION AND ABATEMENT PROGRAM n council Zo j acenba RepoRt 1�Nb. CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Revi Manager SUBJECT: SIGN AMORTIZATION AND ABATEMENT PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive the property/business owner sign survey results and adopt a resolution directing staff to correct non-conforming signs as individual redevelopment, remodeling, expansion, or sign program updates are proposed. DISCUSSION The City Council reviewed a report prepared by the Community Development Department at your October 6, 1998 meeting that addressed the status of the City's Sign Amortization and Abatement Program (previous report attached). In summary, staff was looking for direction from the _.Council on how to address non-conforming signs that were previously subject to an amortization program but had yet to be replaced in accordance with more current sign regulations. At the meeting, staff presented three alternatives for Council consideration. In summary, these options included: 1. Reactivate the City's sign amortization program and declare those signs that failed to be brought into compliance within the mandated time period "public nuisances, "and initiate an active abatement program. 2. Abandon the City's sign amortization program thereby allowing the remaining non-conforming signs to remain and allow new sign copy to be changed from time to time to accommodate new business owners. 3. Take a "middle of the road" approach that would allow the non- conforming signs to remain only until the property is redeveloped, remodeled, expanded, or sign copy changed. Staff had initially recommended option 3 as the desired approach to address bringing those remaining non-conforming signs into compliance. The basis for this recommendation was that the abatement approach would utilize significant staff resources and would not be without controversy and possible legal challenge. It is important to note that option 3 is also the approach recommended by the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. 5- � Council Agenda Report—Sign Amortization and Abatement Program Page 2 Following staffs report and public testimony at the October 6' 1998 hearing, the Council determined that more information was needed from the property owners and businesses who would be affected by any abatement program. Staff was directed to prepare a property/business owner survey that would help the Council understand future plans for the 42 remaining non- conforming signs. Attached to this report is the letter that was sent out to all property and business owners of the 42 signs in question, along with a survey form to be completed and returned to the Community Development Department. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether the property/business owner had advance knowledge of the non-conforming sign and the City's Amortization Program, future plans for sign upgrades, and a question regarding business visibility. Response to the original survey resulted in a less than satisfactory reply rate. Of the 42 properties with fully amortized signs, we received replies from property and/or business owners of only 13 of those signs (31%). Staff then attempted to contact the business and property owners that failed to complete and return the survey by telephone and mail to obtain a better response rate. Staff was successful in contacting all but one business owner and all but three property owners (who don't also own the business), which amounted to a 97% response rate. The following paragraphs outline the results of the survey. Based on the responses received and further staff research, we were successful in removing 6 properties from the initial 42 listed properties. We found where three of the properties actually had received City approval for their non-conforming signs after being placed on the amortization list in 1977 (Olive Tree Inn, Villa Motel, and Bello's). One sign that was originally non- conforming was found to be in compliance with our current sign regulations (San Luis Powerhouse). One abandoned sign (American Cleaners) was removed after our survey was sent and the owner realized that it was not in conformance. One notable sign(65 foot high Royal Oak Motel sign) was removed as part of a sign program upgrade and new signs in compliance with City sign standards and ARC direction have been placed on that property. 36 properties remain on the City's amortization list(see revised Exhibit A). The first series of questions asked in the survey attempted to find out whether the property or business owner had knowledge that they have non-conforming signs and were subject to a City amortization program. Of the 50 responses (business plus property owners) only 15 (30%) said that they had received notice and knew that they had a non-conforming sign. A review of the early sign amortization files noted that a minimum of two and sometimes three or more notices were mailed out as part of the program. However, since the letters were only sent out to the business address, it is possible that the 15 property owners, who do not also own the business, may have not had any knowledge of the non-conforming sign and the amortization program. That still leaves 35 business owners, who if owned the business in 1977, would have received multiple notices. 5 �. Council Agenda Report—Sign Amortization and Abatement Program Page 3 Further analysis of the survey results indicated that of the 35 business owners who responded, 20 have owned their business (or it has been in the family) since the amortization program was established in 1977. A review of the sign amortization files indicates that each of these businesses received at least two written notices (the second letter by certified mail). However, 12 of these "long term"owners indicated that they never received notice. As could be expected, very few of the "post 1977" business owners would have knowledge that they had sign(s) that required modification or removal. Two of the 15 new owners however responded that they had knowledge of a non-conforming sign. The second stated purpose for the survey was to find out what future plans, if any, the owners have for signage upgrades (i.e. if left up to them, when would they likely comply). Of the 35 business owners who responded, three indicated that they would likely be in for signage upgrades within one year. One stated that they have new signage plans in the five-year range. One owner stated that they would be taking approximately 10 years and two business owners, indicated that they will be remodeling soon but have no plans for new signage. This leaves 30 of the 35 business owners with no plans to update their signage. In terms of business visibility., 23 of the 35 responding business owners who responded, indicated that a new sign in conformity with current sign regulations would negatively affect the visibility of their business. Four stated that they felt visibility would not be negatively affected and 8 were unsure or didn't answer the question. The survey also gave staff an opportunity to educate or reeducate business owners on the purpose of the sign amortization program and to hear their feelings about sign amortization in general. Many felt that new signage would hurt their business. Others didn't seem to know why their sign was non-conforming and why the City had any issue with it. One common theme was that old signs should be"grandfathered"and be left alone. Although it was surprising to staff of the number of businesses who by our records received multiple notices during the late 1970's and early 1980's, claimed to not know that they were subject to a sign amortization program, the results of the survey were not unexpected. It was clear from the survey and from several phone conversations, that business owners feel the signs are not hurting the aesthetic quality of the City and that they should be "grandfathered" since they were installed before the sign regulations changed and have been in place for a number of years. Several of the businesses that rely on visibility from the traveling public (i.e. restaurants, hotels/motels, and service stations) are particularly concerned about being seen. Considering the results of the additional investigation, staff does not feel that the results.of the survey change our October 6, 1998 recommendation to adopt a less aggressive approach to address the 36 remaining properties with non-conforming signs. This approach avoids a difficult and complex abatement program that would involve a level of staff resources that we don't feel is justified for the few remaining signs in the program. Staffs recommended approach would 5-3 Council Agenda Report—Sign Amortization and Abatement Program Page 4 require updated signage whenever any redevelopment, remodeling, expansion, or sign program updates are proposed. As indicated above, two more non-conforming signs (American Cleaners and Royal Oak Motel) were either removed or brought into compliance since the Council's initial review of this matter in October of 1998. Staff feels that as more redevelopment plans are considered or new sign programs are updated (i.e. new signage or change in business), that more of these remaining signs will be brought into compliance. Although taking this approach would extend the time it takes to bring all of the amortized signed into compliance, staff feels that the time frame is acceptable given the age of the signs and the rate that businesses change. ALTERNATIVES 1. Abandon the City's sign amortization program. Taking this action would mean that the 36 remaining signs would be allowed to retain their non-conforming status indefinitely. The signs could be maintained and copy changed to accommodate new business owners. Such action would be inequitable to those businesses that previously brought their signage into compliance. 2. Reactivate the City's sign amortization program. This alternative involves full reactivation of the program and initiating the hearings necessary to declare the remaining signs public nuisances. The first step will be for staff to perform an update of our current sign regulations to correct any deficiencies that could be susceptible to legal challenge. Then as pointed out in the October 6, 1998 Council Report (attached), the hearing process would begin that would declare the signs as nuisances and a second hearing to allow landowner objections. Given the department's heavy workload and other important Council directed work programs, initiation of this alternative could be delayed until late in the 2001 fiscal year. Attachments 1. Resolution in support of taking moderate approach 2. Resolution declaring remaining non-conforming signs as public nuisances and setting an objection hearing 3. October 6, 1998 Council Report 4. Sample letter and survey 5. Chamber of Commerce correspondence Jam-` ' RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING NON-CONFORMING SIGNS SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S 1977 AMORTIZATION PROGRAM INTO COMPLIANCE WITH REMODELING AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 709 (1977 Series) on August 2, 1977 that established new sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, these 1977 sign regulations contained provisions for amortization of signs made non-conforming by the new regulations including provision for written notice and a valid amortization period commencing on September 3, 1977; and WHEREAS, there remain properties listed on the attached "Exhibit A" that were subject to the City's amortization program who have failed to bring their signs into compliance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires that these remaining signs be brought into compliance as soon as practical in order to insure quality and uniform signage within the City. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council reaffirms the purposes the City's Sign Regulations calling for the protection and enhancement of the character and natural beauty of the community through proper signage and goals and objectives of the City's Sign Amortization Program. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs staff to require any remaining non- conforming sign that was subject to the City's 1977 Sign Amortization Program to be made to comply upon re-development, remodeling, or expansion of the use or abandonment, modification, moving, or other physical change in the property's signage. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 1999. �'S Resolution No. - __ (1999 Series) Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED.AS TO FORM: Alru 40,'A A-4gtfnr,- ome .Je. org en S_� "EXHIBIT A" SITE ADDRESS CURRENT PROPERTY NON-CONFORMING SIGN(S) AMORT. BUSINESS DESCRIP. PERIOD ENDS 1708 Beach Sandercock 003-625-015 Large Roof Sign Jan. 1983 Moving 2143 Broad Gaslight Lounge 003-746-035 non conforming roof sign- too many Dec. 1982 signs 1127 Broad Boston Bagel 002-422-016 hanging sign Feb. 1983 2145 Broad Manuels liquor 003-746-035 sign too large"Manuels" Dec. 1982 1460 Calle Joaquin Denny's 053-151-036 non-conforming, large pole sign Sep. 1987 22 Chorro Mobil 052-174-002 non-c6nforming pole sign Oct. 1982 767 Chorro Mc Lains Photo 002-302-018 wood sign,too large Mar. 1983 1030 Chorro Mission News 002-425-001 wood sign, too low to sidewalk Feb. 1983 774 Foothill Cork&Bottle 052-041-079 non-conforming ole sign Se . 1985 214 Hi era Pauls dry clean 003-711-043 non-conforming, too lare Apr. 1983 236 Hi era Ha and 003-711-041 no permits,too large Oct. 1988 245 Hi era Ratliff welding 003-721-034 non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983 532 Hi era Cam bell's 002-402-028 non-conforming roof sign Mar. 1983 669 Hi era Davidson's 002-422-019 non-conforming, too large Mar. 1983 1212 Hi era San Luis Li r. 002-331-005 non-conforming ole sign Mar. 1983 100 Madonna Madonna Inn 004-511-009 non-conforming,too large, in setback Sep. 1987 208 Madonna Denny's 004-871-015 non-conforming large pole sign Jun. 1988 210 Madonna Vagabond Inn 004-871-016 non-conforming large pole sign Sep. 1987 212 Madonna IHOP 004-871-010 non-conforming large pole sign Aug. 1982 1335 Monterey Computer Stuff 002-333-004 non-conforming projecting sign May 1983 1441 Monterey Mid State Elec. 001-231-024 Non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983 1599 Monterey Cap.Jacks vid. 001-234-005. non-conforming ole sign Feb. 1982 1601 Monterey Pepe Del ados 001-237-001 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1985 1628 Monterey Palm Motel 001-142-003 non-confbrming pole sign in setback Se . 1983 1701 Monterey Standard Mot. 001-151-014 Non-conforming sign,too large Dec. 1982 2223 Monterey Motel Inn 001-112-018 Non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1987 1001 Olive Coachman 001-204-021 non-conforming monument signs Se . 1987 1638 Osos Gus's Grocery 003-553-014 awning sign where not allowed Jan. 1983 150 Pismo SDRC rec. 002-501-002 too large,non-conforming Feb. 1983 1951 Santa Barbara 2 businesses? 003-647-016 Signs in Setback,city right o way Feb. 1983 296 Santa Rosa Shell 001-113-010 non-conforming ole sign Jan. 1983 363 Santa Rosa Union 76 001-112-016 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1987 313 South McCarth 's 004-811-013 non-conforming roof sign Jan. 1983 1340 Taft Union 76 001-042-022 non-conforming ole sign Oct. 1982 625 Toro EI Toro motel 001-121-030 non-conforming ole signs Oct. 1982 1390 Walker CN signs 002-505-005 non-conforming ole sign aband. Apr. 1983 �"7 RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DECLARING VARIOUS ILLEGAL ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING DISPLAYS AS PUBLIC NUISANCES AND SETTING AN OBJECTION HEARING WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 709 (1977 Series) on August 2, 1977 that established new sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, these new sign regulations contained provisions for amortization of signs made non-conforming by the new regulations including provision for written notice and a valid amortization period commencing on September 3, 1977; and WHEREAS, those properties listed on the attached "Exhibit A" were subject to the City's amortization program, were notified to remove or conform with the amended sign regulations, and have failed to comply with the program; and WHEREAS, Section 5494 of the California Business and Professions Code states that these non-conforming signs are presumed illegal "once the amortization period provided by the ordinance or regulation rendering them non-conforming has lapsed and conformance has not been accomplished"; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 6, 1998 and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council reaffirms the purposes the City's Sign Regulations calling for the protection and enhancement of the character and natural beauty of the community through proper signage and goals and objectives of the City's Sign Amortization Program. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that the signs listed on the attached "Exhibit A" are public nuisances and shall be subject to abatement. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs staff to conspicuously post "Notice to Remove Illegal Advertising Display" on those properties identified in "Exhibit A" as well as provide written notice of proposed abatement in a manner as prescribed by law. S $ Resolution No. _ (1999 Series) Page 2_ _ On motion of , seconded by ___ , and on the following-roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of ' 1999. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: hworno Je orge en 5-� "EXHIBIT A" SITE ADDRESS CURRENT PROPERTY NON-CONFORMING SIGN(S) AMORT. BUSINESS DESCRIP. PERIOD ENDS 1708 Beach Sandercock 003-625-015 Large Roof Sign Jan. 1983 Moving 2143 Broad Gaslight Lounge 003-746-035 non conforming roof sign- too many Dec. 1982 signs 1127 Broad Boston Bagel 002-422-016 hanging sign Feb. 1983 2145 Broad Manuels liquor 003-746-035 sign too large"Manuels" Dec. 1982 1460 Calle Joaquin. Denny's 053-151-036 non-conforming, large pole sign Sep. 1987 22 Chorro Mobil 052-174-002 non-conforming le sign Oct. 1982 767 Chorro Mc Lains Photo 002-302-018 wood sign,too laze Mar. 1983 1030 Chorro Mission News 002-425-001 wood sign,too low to sidewalk Feb. 1983 774 Foothill Cork&Bottle 052-041-079 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1985 214 Hi era Pauls dry clean 003-711-043 non-conforming,too large Apr. 1983 236 Hi era Hayward 003-711-041 no permits,too large Oct. 1988 245 Higuera, Ratliff welding 003-721-034 non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983 532 Hi era Campbell's 002-402-028 non-conforming roof sign Mar. 1983 669 Hi era Davidson's 002-422-019 non-conforming,too laze Mar. 1983 1212 Hi era San Luis Liqr. 002-331-005 non-conforming ole sign Mar. 1983 100 Madonna Madonna Inn 004-511-009 non-conforming, too large,in setback Se . 1987 208 Madonna Denny's 004-871-015 non-conforming laze pole sign Jun. 1988 210 Madonna Vagabond Inn 004-871-016 non-conforming large pole sign Sep. 1987 212 Madonna IHOP 004-871-010 non-conFo-rming large pole sign Aug. 1982 1335 Monterey Computer Stuff 002-333-004 non-conforming projecting sign May 1983 1441 Monterey Mid State Elec. 001-231-024 Non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983 1599 Monterey Cap.Jacks vid. 001-234-005 non-conforming ole sign Feb. 1982 1601 Monterey Pepe Del ados 001-237-001 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1985 1628 Monterey Palm Motel 001-142-003 non-conforming ole sign in setback Sep. 1983 1701 Monterey Standard Mot. 001-151-014 Non-conforming sign,too large Dec. 1982 2223 Monterey Motel Inn 001-112-018 Non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1987 1001 Olive Coachman 001-204-021 non-conforming monument signs Sep. 1987 1638 Osos Gus's Grocery 003-553-014 awning sign where not allowed Jan. 1983 150 Pismo SDRC rec. 002-501-002 too large,non-conforming Feb. 1983 1951 Santa Barbara 2 businesses? 003-647-016 Signs in Setback,city right o way Feb. 1983 296 Santa Rosa Shell 001-113-010 non-conforming ole sign Jan. 1983 363 Santa Rosa Union 76 001-112-016 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1987 313 South McCarth 's 004-811-013 non-conforming roof sign Jan. 1983 1340 Taft Union 76 001-042-022 non-conforming ole sign Oct. 1982 625 Toro El Toro motel 001-121-030 non-conforming ole signs Oct. 1982 1390 Walker CN signs 002-505-005 non-conforming ole sign aband. Apr. 1983 ------------ 0 10 council j agenba Repout 1�N.1" CITY O F SAN LU I S OBISPO FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: SIGN AMORTIZATION AND ABATEMENT PROGRAM CAO RECOMAWNDATION Accept the report on the sign amortization and abatement program and adopt a resolution directing staff to correct non-conforming signs as individual re-development, remodeling, expansion,or sign program updates are proposed. DISCUSSION Situation With assistance from the community and the Architectural Review Commission.(ARC), the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City's Sign Regulations on July 3, 1997. The purpose of this ARC work program was to correct cumbersome sign regulations and make the ordinance easier to understand and apply. As discussed in Council's May 20, 1997 report on the new sign regulations, the second phase of the work program is consideration of a possible reactivation of the City's Sign Amortization Program. Amortization is a program that provides for the gradual elimination or replacement of non- conforming signs over a reasonable time period. Sign amortization in the City of San Luis Obispo began with the first comprehensive sign ordinance amendment dating back to September 3, 1977. In order to meet legal requirements, the City's program contained amortization periods ranging from two to ten years depending on the value of the non-conforming sign. The purpose of the program was to allow continued use of non-conforming signs but ultimately ensuring that community sign standards would be met. Following a survey that began in 1977, the City mailed notices to all property owners of non- conforming signs giving them the time frame that they had to work with in order to bring their signs into compliance. With an original ordinance date of September 3, 1977, all non- conforming signs were to be removed or replaced with conforming signs by September 3, 1987. Many of the property owners who were subject to the City's Sign Amortization Program cooperated and brought their signage into compliance. Research into the City's sign 'amortization files, combined with a field survey conducted earlier this year, noted that 118 of 160 properties with non-conforming signs made the necessary changes to comply. There remain 42 property owners that were subject to the 1977 amortization program who have failed to bring their signs into compliance. 5-r � Council Agenda Report-Sign.Amortization and Abatement Program Page 2 The City's amortization program remains in effect and was in no way modified or superseded by more recent amendments to the City's Sign Regulations. The program was slowed down however in the early 1990s due to work load, staffing, and other enforcement priorities. Currently, City staff'and the ARC gain compliance on a case by case basis when development applications are processed for building modifications or for new signs on properties where fully amortized signs remain. Summary of the Law Advertising signage is one area that is heavily regulated by State law. The California Business and Professions Code contains several key statutes that govern how cities regulate non- conforming signs. In summary, amortization programs established prior to March 12, 1983 are lawful and signs that have had their amortization periods run, can be abated. Since San Luis Obispo's amortization program was established in 1977, we have the ability to abate any remaining signs that have not been removed or made to comply with standards contained in that 1977 sign ordinance. Changes in our sign regulations made after 1983 do not permit us to establish an amortization program without payment of"fair and just" compensation. There are exceptions however in the case of:illegal, abandoned, damaged(beyond 50%),modified,moved, and hazardous signs. In addition to statutes that regulate the amortization and removal ofnon-conforming signs, State law also addresses how city's must accomplish abatement of these amortized signs. As would be expected, any action by the City to declare these signs nuisances and abate them, requires all affected property owners to be notified and given an opportunity to present arguments or "protests"before the City Council why their sign(s) should not be abated. Abatement.Decisions. The first decision that the Council needs to make is'how'to proceed with the City's 1977 Sign Amortization Program. The 42 property owners of the remaining non-conforming signs have clearly had proper notice and sufficient time (over 20 years) to bring their signage into compliance. If the Council should choose to bring the remaining amortized signs into compliance through an abatement process, the fust step would be to hold a public hearing where the Council would declare those remaining signs as illegal and a public nuisance. The next step will be schedule an objection hearing before the City Council where property owners of these illegal signs can present evidence and the Council can allow or overrule any objection. This objection hearing must be properly noticed (using a format dictated by the statutes) and the property posted. Following the protest hearing(s), all remaining illegal signs would be turned over to the City's enforcement officer for abatement. It is important to note that although the above process would be the quickest and most effective method to gain compliance, it will certainly not be without controversy. Although there are a few visibly non-conforming signs in town, primarily large free-standing pole signs (i.e. Royal 5� L Council Agenda Report-Sign Amortization and Abatement Program Page-! . Oak Motel,Vagabond Inn, and Dennys on Madonna Road), there are others that many would not necessarily consider offensive or out of compliance (i.e. Boston Bagel's hanging sign, Gus's Grocery awning sign, or the landmark Madonna Inn sign). The .Council therefore needs to consider the significance of any action to start a citywide abatement program. Although the amortization program established in 1977 has received less attention in the past decade, it is important to note that staff is still pursuing the removal or replacement of non- conforming signage throughout the City. The current process involves working with property owners when they come in with redevelopment plans or new signage programs. A recent example would be the Shell station on Madonna Road as part of a station remodel. Through the ARC process, the applicants agreed to lower the non-conforming freeway pole sign to the then current standard of 25 feet. Since any action on this important program will have an effect on existing business interests, staff presented the Sign Amortization Program options to the Chamber of Commerce.for review and input. The. Chamber strongly supports the City's .Sign ordinance but feels that forcing compliance through abatement is not necessary. The Chamber therefore recommends that the City take a moderate approach whereby remaining non-conforming signs are brought into compliance through on-going remodeling and redevelopment efforts. This approach would require a long time period (perhaps decades) to achieve compliance, with some signs not changing in the foreseeable future. Issues.with Taking the Recommended Action Pursuing an aggressive abatement program will certainly affect 42 businesses in San Luis Obispo. Signage.is critical exposure for all businesses and is not without expense: However, this community_ has consistently demanded quality signage with adoption of every sign ordinance dating back to 1977. The question is how fast does the Council wish to accomplish bringing our non-conforming signs into compliance. Although staffs current method of gaining compliance on a case by case basis may be taking longer than some may like, we still feel that the process is effective. In addition, in recent years the City has made great efforts to change the perception that it is `unfriendly"to business. An aggressive abatement program would likely become a "media event" and negatively effect .the progress we have made and the economic development goals established by Council. We would therefore recommend that the Council direct staff to continue with this approach and to work with property owners to ensure that future development plans are sensitive to our current community's sign standards.. FISCAL IMPACT Continuing with our present method of sign amortization will involve no additional staff resources. Sign issues will be addressed through the normal planning application process where processing fees are paid by the applicants pursuant to the City's fee schedule. Council Agenda Report-Sign Amortization and Abatement Program Page 4 Reactivating a more aggressive sign amortization program with abatement, will also involve use of existing staff resources. The notification and hearing process will be accomplished by Community Development. Abatement cases will be referred to the Neighborhood Services Manager for initiation of required action. Work will be on a "as time allows" basis factoring existing case loads and priorities. However, with the existing case load, it may be some time before all of the cases could be processed and signs removed or replaced. Even with such delays, however, compliance issues would be resolved in a much shorter period of time than through attrition. ALTERNATIVES The Council has two main alternatives to staff's recommended action: 1. Abandon the City's sign amortization program. Taking this action would mean that the 42 remaining properties would be allowed to retain their non-conforming signs. The signs could be maintained and copy changed to accommodate new business owners. Such action would be inequitable to those businesses which previously brought their signage into compliance. 2. Reactivate the City's sign amortization program. This alternative involves full reactivation of the program and initiating the hearings necessary to declare the remaining signs public nuisances. This option would require a two step process outlined above that would include a hearing to declare the nuisance and a second to allow land owner objections. Attachments 1. Resolution in support of taking moderate approach 2. Resolution declaring remaining non-conforming signs as public nuisances and setting an objection hearing. 3. Chamber of Commerce correspondence 5-t4 4111111111111111111 @►iii°iiia►II II icityof sAn tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 2, 1999 Subject: Non-conforming Sign at Dear The City of San Luis Obispo requests your cooperation and assistance by completing the attached questionnaire. You are listed by the County Assessor as either the owner of the above referenced property, or the owner of a business at the property, which according to City records, has a"non-conforming sign."A non-conforming sign is one that was installed consistent with the City's sign regulation, but no longer complies with the height or area standards of more recent versions those regulations. Signs that became non-conforming with adoption of the City's first comprehensive sign ordinance amendment on September 3, 1977, were subject to a sign amortization program that provided for the gradual elimination or replacement of non- conforming signs over a reasonable time period. The purpose of the sign amortization program was to allow continued use of non-conforming signs for a specified time period, after which the signs were to be brought into compliance with current community sign standards. A survey was conducted in 1977 to identify all non- conforming signs, and notices were mailed to all property owners specifying a time frame for bringing signs into compliance (between two and ten years depending on the sign's monetary value). Your property was one of those surveyed and notified. In 1998, the City resurveyed all properties that were identified in 1977 as having non-conforming signs. That survey found that of the original 160 properties, 41 have signs which were not brought into compliance by the September 1987 deadline. According to our survey, your property retains its original non-confonning sign(s). The City Council considered the survey results and alternative ways to reactivate the sign amortization program. Options under consideration include abatement of non-conforming signs with future redevelopment of affected properties versus a more proactive compliance program. The Council ultimately decided that, before taking further action, owners of non-conforming signs should be polled to determine the specific time period needed to remove or otherwise bring the non-conforming sign(s) into conformity with the sign ordinance. The enclosed questionnaire has been designed to gather the information to assist the City Council in making a decision on the future of the sign amortization program. Your completion and return of the survey will allow us to share your future plans with the Council. Your response by May 1 /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Non-conforming Sign Survey June 2, 1999 Page 2 will allow Council to take your comments into consideration when they determine how to proceed regarding the sign amortization program..A self-addressed envelope is provided for your convenience. We thank you in advance for your cooperation. In addition, feel free to call me at(805) 781=7177 with any questions that you may have regarding the survey or the City's sign. amortization program: Sincerely, Ronald Whisenand Development Review Manager cc:: Arnold Jonas, Community Development.-Director John Dunn, CAO Jr'lb %,ity of san Luis owspo 1999 non-con foRminc sicn suuvey 1. When did you acquire your property/business? 2. Were you aware at that time,that the premises contained any non- conforming sign(s)? Yes ❑ No 3. Were you notified upon purchase or acquisition of the property or business that the sign(s)needed to be brought into conformance with the current City sign standards? Yes No 4. If you knew of the non-conformity and were notified that the sign(s) needed to be brought into conformance,what has interfered with bringing the sign(s)into conformance with City sign regulations? 5. Do you have plans to bring your sign(s) into conformance with current City sign standards? If so when? 1 Year ❑ 5 Years ❑ 10 Years ❑ No Plans ❑ 6. Do you feel that a new sign in conformance with current City sign El would affect the visibility of your business? Yes No ❑ Comments: Questionnaire filled out by: (check one) Property Owner _ Business Owner_ Both Address: Thank You 5'r � RECEIVED San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce MAY 27 1998 1039 Chorro Street R San Luis Obispo. California 93401-3278 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (805) 781.2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e-mail: slochamberC slochamberorg David E. Garth, President/CEO May 26, 1998 Ron Whisenand Development Review Manager City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Sign Ordinance Enforcement Dear Ron: The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has been actively involved with the City's Sign Regulations since the late 1970s. The Chamber believes the purpose of the ordinance is two-fold. One it serves as a "level playing field", requiring all businesses in the City to comply with the same regulations. Two, it is a useful economic development tool since it improves the aesthetic quality of the City. The Chamber has been, and continues to be, in favor of moderate enforcement levels of the ordinance. The Chamber feels that enforcement is appropriate when a permit for development change is issued on a property. It is at that time that any existing non- complying signs should be brought into compliance. At this time, the Chamber does not think it is necessary force compliance. The moderate approach is working well and is not unduly burdensome. Thank you for seeking our input on this matter. Sincerely, -� TEN YEARS Shelly Stanwyck Director of Governmental Affairs ACCREDITED CHAMBER a CONK M 5-_l S DATE IN AGENDA 5 -yA,�- -q ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce • 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO October 4, 1999 EMOUNCIL EnDD DIA IRTAO ❑FIN DIR &MLAO ❑FIRE CHIEF CkMORNEY ❑PW DIR Mayor Allen Settle 2tLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo 131 WMUs2nand O UM DIR 990 Palm Street ❑ 0 PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: SIGN AMORTIZATION AND ABATEMENT PROGRAM Dear Mayor Settle: I wanted to reiterate the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce's support for a moderate sign amortization and abatement program. Due to Chamber staff travel schedules, the Chamber will not be able to have a staff member present to comment at tomorrow's Council meeting when you receive the update to this program However, the Chamber supports the City staffs recommendation to correct non-confomling signs as individual redevelopment, remodeling, expansion or sign program updates are proposed. The Chamber supports the moderate approach for this program because we feel an active enforcement program would unecessarily utilize significant staff resources and would also not build good will with the business community. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, lShelY ^Yk Director of Governmental Affairs RECEIVED n C.r Q 4 1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL e-mail: slochamberpslochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com