HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2016 CHC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
Monday, July 25, 2016
5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL
TO ORDER: Chair Hill
ROLL CALL: Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert,
Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of May 23 and June 6, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on
the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director,
another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed.
1.849 Monterey Street. ARCH-3347-2016: Review of a projecting sign on a Master List
Historic Building (Sinsheimer Building) with an exception to sign regulations for
San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of July 25, 2016 Page 2
maximum allowable area, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D-H
zone; Joe DeFronzo, applicant. (Kyle Bell)
2. 736 Higuera Street. ARCH-3294-2016: Review of new signage on a Master List Historic
Building (Carissa Building) including an exception to place a wall sign on an elevation
without a public entrance, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D-H
zone; Auzco Development, LLC, applicant. (Kyle Bell)
3. Sign Regulations Update Study Session. OTHR-3466-2016: Discussion of sign
guidelines applicable to historic resources and historic districts which should be included
for further discussion in the draft Sign Regulations Update project; Citywide; Community
Development Department, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Item Number : 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE CO MMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a new projecting sign on a Master List Historic Building (Sinsheimer
Building) with a categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 849 Monterey Street BY: Kip Morais, Planning Intern Phone: (805) 781-7183 E-mail: kmorais@slocity.org VIA: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3347-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION : Recommend the Community Development Director find the
project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance .
SITE DATA
Applicant Pane E Pomodoro, LLC
Submittal Date June 13, 2016
Complete Date June 21, 2016
Historic Status Master List
General Plan General Retail
Zoning C-D-H (Historic Downtown
Commercial)
Site Area ~6,700 s.f.
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under
CEQA Guidelines section
15301 (Existing Facilities)
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted architectural review application for the review of a sign exception
on the façade of a Master List Historic Resource (Sinsheimer Brothers Building) located at 847
Monterey Street in the Downtown Historic District. The proposed sign exceeds the maximum
area for a projecting sign in the Downtown Commercial Zone by 2.7 square feet. The
Community Development director will consider the exception based on CHC analysis of the
Secretary of the Interiors Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines.
CHC1 - 1
849 Monterey Street
ARCH-3347-2015
Page 2
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located on Monterey Street between Chorro Street and Morro Street
in the Downtown-Commercial zone with Historic Overlay (C -D-H). The Sinsheimer
Building is a two story Master List Historic Resource fronting Monterey Street; built in 1884
(Historic Resources Inventory). The Sinsheimer building has been used as a retail store on
the ground floor with offices on the second floor. The Historic Resources Inventory
characterizes the architecture as a Renaissance Revival in the North Italian Mode. Some of
the character-defining features are masonry blocks on the corners of the second story wall,
and six segmental arched windows on the second floor. The cornice on the façade shows
classical detailing. One of the significant features is the first floor iron façade, consisting of
several iron classic columns which frame six double French entrance doors . The historic
inventory report states that this is the only iron front façade in the County (Attachment 2,
Historic Inventory Report).
3.2 Project Description
The proposed projecting sign is 5’10” in wid th and 2’-3
1/2” in height (Figure #1). Materials consist of sculpted
steel and hand painted 13.4 square ft. sign with exposed
neon lighting. The sign also contains a 1.3 square ft .
black circle of raised polished Bronze lettering on black
textured background mounted above the sign cabinet.
The sculpted steel supports are finished to match the
existing cast iron storefront color. The projecting sign
is positioned perpendicular to the primary façade from
the street view, and positioned below the historic
Sinsheimer Bros. Sign. This is the only sign proposed
for the business (Attachment 3, reduced scale project
plans ).
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed sign exception shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Community Development
Director. The below evaluation includes staff analysis of the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation of a historic property and Historic Preservation Guidelines for construction on
historic properties within historic districts .
4.1 Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI)
The most appropriate treatment standard to consider in the evaluation of the project is SOI
Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Standards are intended to make possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions, while preserving
those portions of features which concern its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved…
Figure #1: Proposed projecting sign
CHC1 - 2
849 Monterey Street
ARCH-3347-2015
Page 3
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, alterations, or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity
of the property and its environment.
Staff Analysis: The SOI S tandards for Historic Rehabilitation recommends constructing
new alterations so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials, and so that
character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed 1 . The addition of
this sign to the façade will not result in the loss or damage of the buildings character
defining features. The sign is differentiated from the old, and will be consist of materials
that complement the historic architecture and building materials. The sign will not
obstruct the historic Sinsheimer Bros. wall sign from the street view of the primary
façade, as it is perpendicular to the pedestrian from the street view. The applicant has
proposed a projecting sign rather than a wall sign with the intent to preserve and not
obscure the historic Sinsheimer Bros. wall sign, and the iron façade. Staff recommends
Condition #1: The existing historic Sinsheimer Bros wall sign shall be retained and not
obscured, relocated, or modified.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction
will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Staff Analysis: The new sign has been designed with finished sc ulpted steel to reflect the
materials of the cast iron façade. The sign has been designed to be compatible with the
historic materials , because the sculpted steel frame is finished to match the cast iron
storefront color. The sign is installed with a bracket assembly that, in the future , makes
it possible to remove the sign without impairing the essential form of the iron storefront.
4.2 Historic Preservation Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic
resources and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts.
3.4.3 Retention of character-defining features: Alterations of historically-listed buildings
shall retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary building
facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that
preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes: Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or
resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the
building, its setting and architectural context…
1 Secretary of Interior Standards Additions/Alterations: Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic
building are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alteration do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.
CHC1 - 3
849 Monterey Street
ARCH-3347-2015
Page 4
Staff Analysis (architectural elements, exterior materials): The applicant has proposed a
sign that does not conflict with existing architectural elements, and is compatible with
the character and context of the building. This is achie ved by using high-quality sculpted
steel designed to complement the historic iron storefront, and placing the sign in a way
that does not obstruct the view of the historic wall sign or front building façade.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under the following: Section 15301 (Existing Facilities ),
because the proposed sign is a minor exterior alteration to an existing building that will have no
significant impact on the environment.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines or the Secretary of Interior Standards.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Historic Inventory Report
3. Reduced scale project plans
CHC1 - 4
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN T DIRECTOR FIND THE
PROJECTING SIGN ON A MASTER LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE (S INSHEIMER
BUILDING), CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE;
849 MONTEREY STREET, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, C-D-H ZON E,
APPLICATION #ARCH-3347-2016
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on July 25 , 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3347-2016; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings . The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends final
approval to the project (ARCH-3347-2016), based on the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
because distinctive materials and features will remain, and the historic character of the
property will be retained and preserved.
2. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines since the proposed
alterations to a historic structure retain character defining features, do not introduce new
or conflicting arch itectural elements, and comply with rehabilitation standards of the
Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under the
following: Section 15301 (Existing Facilities ), because the proposed sign is a minor exterior
alteration to an existing building that will have no significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends the
Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance , subject to the following condition :
1. The existing Sinsheimer Bros wall sign shall be retained and not obscured, relocated, or
modified.
Attachment 1
CHC1 - 5
Resolution No.XXXX-16
849 Monterey Street (ARCH-3347-2016)
Page 2
On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of July 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille , Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
Attachment 1
CHC1 - 6
Attachment 2
CHC1 - 7
Attachment 2
CHC1 - 8
Attachment 2
CHC1 - 9
Attachment 2
CHC1 - 10
Attachment 2
CHC1 - 11
AL
L
I
D
E
A
S
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
,
A
R
R
A
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
,
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
S
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
O
R
RE
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
E
D
B
Y
T
H
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
O
W
N
E
D
B
Y
A
N
D
T
H
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
O
F
P
I
E
R
R
E
R
A
D
E
M
A
K
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
,
A
N
D
W
E
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
E
D
,
EV
O
L
V
E
D
,
A
N
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
F
O
R
U
S
E
O
N
A
N
D
I
N
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
TH
E
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
N
O
N
E
O
F
S
U
C
H
I
D
E
A
S
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
,
AR
R
A
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
U
S
E
D
B
Y
O
R
D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D
T
O
AN
Y
P
E
R
S
O
N
,
F
I
R
M
O
R
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
A
N
Y
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
W
H
A
T
S
O
-
EV
E
R
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
O
F
P
I
E
R
R
E
R
A
D
E
M
A
K
E
R
DE
S
I
G
N
.
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
S
H
A
L
L
H
A
V
E
PR
E
C
E
D
E
N
C
E
O
V
E
R
S
C
A
L
E
D
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
S
H
A
L
L
VE
R
I
F
Y
A
N
D
B
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
L
L
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
O
N
T
H
E
J
O
B
,
A
N
D
T
H
I
S
O
F
F
I
C
E
M
U
S
T
B
E
N
O
T
I
F
I
E
D
O
F
AN
Y
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
BY
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
.
S
H
O
P
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
M
U
S
T
B
E
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D
T
O
T
H
E
OF
F
I
C
E
F
O
R
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
F
A
B
R
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
Gu
i
s
e
p
p
e
’
s
C
u
c
i
n
a
Ru
s
t
i
c
a
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
Ma
i
n
S
t
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
S
i
g
n
De
t
a
i
l
s P
R
/
K
S
/
K
T
P
R
0
4
-
0
7
-
1
6
0
6
-
0
8
-
1
6
Si
n
s
h
e
i
m
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
m
o
d
e
l
G
I
-
1
5
0
1
2
2
10
4
1
C
H
O
R
R
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
3
0
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
3
4
0
1
ra
d
e
m
a
k
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
c
o
m
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
:
8
0
5
/
5
4
4
-
7
7
7
4
Si
g
n
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
1
/
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
Ra
i
s
e
d
p
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
B
r
o
n
z
e
l
e
t
t
e
r
i
n
g
on
b
l
a
c
k
s
m
a
l
t
z
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
(
1
.
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Sc
u
l
p
t
e
d
s
t
e
e
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
t
o
ma
t
c
h
c
a
s
t
i
r
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
c
o
l
o
r
2’
-
3
1
/
2
”
x
5
’
-
1
0
”
s
i
g
n
p
a
n
e
l
(1
3
.
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
)
Ha
n
d
p
a
i
n
t
e
d
s
i
g
n
c
a
b
i
n
e
t
wi
t
h
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
n
e
o
n
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
bo
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
1
-
1
2
AL
L
I
D
E
A
S
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
,
A
R
R
A
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
,
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
S
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
O
R
RE
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
E
D
B
Y
T
H
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
A
R
E
O
W
N
E
D
B
Y
A
N
D
T
H
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
O
F
P
I
E
R
R
E
R
A
D
E
M
A
K
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
,
A
N
D
W
E
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
E
D
,
EV
O
L
V
E
D
,
A
N
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
F
O
R
U
S
E
O
N
A
N
D
I
N
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
TH
E
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
N
O
N
E
O
F
S
U
C
H
I
D
E
A
S
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
,
AR
R
A
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
U
S
E
D
B
Y
O
R
D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D
T
O
AN
Y
P
E
R
S
O
N
,
F
I
R
M
O
R
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
A
N
Y
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
W
H
A
T
S
O
-
EV
E
R
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
O
F
P
I
E
R
R
E
R
A
D
E
M
A
K
E
R
DE
S
I
G
N
.
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
S
H
A
L
L
H
A
V
E
PR
E
C
E
D
E
N
C
E
O
V
E
R
S
C
A
L
E
D
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
S
H
A
L
L
VE
R
I
F
Y
A
N
D
B
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
L
L
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
O
N
T
H
E
J
O
B
,
A
N
D
T
H
I
S
O
F
F
I
C
E
M
U
S
T
B
E
N
O
T
I
F
I
E
D
O
F
AN
Y
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
F
R
O
M
T
H
E
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
BY
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
.
S
H
O
P
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
M
U
S
T
B
E
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
E
D
T
O
T
H
E
OF
F
I
C
E
F
O
R
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
B
E
F
O
R
E
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
F
A
B
R
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
.
Gu
i
s
e
p
p
e
’
s
C
u
c
i
n
a
Ru
s
t
i
c
a
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
Si
g
n
M
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
P
R
/
K
S
/
K
T
P
R
0
4
-
0
7
-
1
6
0
6
-
0
8
-
1
6
Si
n
s
h
e
i
m
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
m
o
d
e
l
G
I
-
1
5
0
1
1
2
10
4
1
C
H
O
R
R
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
3
0
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
3
4
0
1
ra
d
e
m
a
k
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
c
o
m
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
:
8
0
5
/
5
4
4
-
7
7
7
4
Pe
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
V
i
e
w
No
S
c
a
l
e
Mo
u
n
t
i
n
g
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
2
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ca
s
t
i
r
o
n
st
o
r
e
f
r
o
n
t
to
r
e
m
a
i
n
5’
-
1
0
'
'
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
to
r
e
m
a
i
n
2
'
-
3
1
/
2
'
'
1
0
'
-
2
'
'
Si
g
n
A
r
e
a
:
13
.
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
1
-
1
3
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of new signage on a Master List Historic Building (Carrisa Building) with a
categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 736/738 Higuera Street BY: Kip Morais, Planning Intern Phone: (805) 781-7183 E-mail: kmorais@slocity.org
VIA: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3294-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Community Development Director find the
project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Secretary of Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
SITE DATA
Applicant Hamish Marshall: San Luis
Downtown Management, LLC
Submittal Date May 4, 2016
Complete Date June 1, 2016
Historic Status Master List
General Plan General Retail
Zoning C-D-H (Historic Downtown
Commercial)
Site Area ~10,800 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under
CEQA Guidelines section 15301
(Existing Facilities)
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has proposed new signage on the primary façade (Higuera Street) and the Western
Elevation of the Master List Historic Carrisa building located at 736/738 Higuera Street in the
Downtown Historic District. Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) review is required to review
the project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of
Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Following CHC review, the project
will be forwarded to the Community Development Director for consideration of final project
approval.
CHC2 - 1
736/738 Higuera Street
ARCH-3294-2016
Page 2
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located mid-block facing southeast between Chorro and Broad
Streets in the Downtown-Commercial zone within the Downtown Historic District Overlay
(C-D-H). The Carrisa Building is a two-story Master List Historic Resource; built between
1903 & 1905. The building is bounded on either side by one story structures. The Historic
Resources Inventory lists character defining features such as deeply recessed entrances,
double-hung windows on the second floor, and decorative cornice and parapet (Attachment
2, Historic Inventory Report). On January 28, 2013, the CHC reviewed the modifications to
the primary façade of the building which are now nearing completion as part of the
rehabilitation for the SLO Brew use.
3.2 Project Description
The proposed project includes an entry wall
sign that is approximately 67.33 square feet in
area, located on the primary façade of the
building (Higuera Street). The entry sign has
been designed to include materials such as
copper, stainless steel, blacked steel and both
red and white neon tube lights (Figure #1). The
project also includes a proposed wall sign
painted directly on the brick façade located on
the west elevation of the Carrisa building. The
proposed sign is approximately 109.89 square
feet in area, and the top of the sign is located at
a height of approximately 32 feet off the ground
that is proposed to be illuminated by a
downward facing gooseneck light fixture
(Attachment 3, Project Plans).
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed painted wall sign requires an exception for its location on a wall without a public
entrance and for overall sign area. The Director will take action on the exceptions pending
consideration of the CHC’s determination of the proposals conformance with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The below evaluation includes staff analysis of the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation of a historic property and Historic Preservation Guidelines for
construction on historic properties within historic districts.
4.1 Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI)
The most appropriate treatment is best characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI
Standards of Treatment, since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the
property, and proposes additional features while seeking to preserve the building’s historic
and architectural values.
Figure #1: Entry wall sign
CHC2 - 2
736/738 Higuera Street
ARCH-3294-2016
Page 3
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new
construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff Analysis: The SOI Standards for Historic Rehabilitation recommends constructing
new alterations so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials, and so that
character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed 1. The proposed entry
sign is compatible and consistent with the historic features of the building, and does not
appear to detract from the essential form and architectural integrity of the historic
building. The signs do not interfere visually with significant features such as the cornice
separating the first and second floor. The entry wall sign does block a small portion of
the transom windows, however if removed in the future the integrity of the historic
structure will remain unimpaired. However, care must be taken so that installation of the
signs does not damage or alter the restored transom windows. To ensure the transom
windows are not damaged or destroyed, staff is recommended Condition #1: Plans
submitted for Director Review shall demonstrate how installation of the entry wall sign
will not damage the transom windows.
The proposed painted wall sign is proposed to be applied
directly to the existing brick work on the west elevation
of the Carrisa building (Figure #2). Staff recommends
that the application of paint for the proposed wall sign be
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards,
and that the application of paint does not damage the
brick wall. Staff recommends Condition #3: Plans
submitted for Director Review shall demonstrate a
method of installation/application for the proposed signs
that in case of future removal shall not damage the
essential form and architectural integrity of the building.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Staff Analysis: The proposed signs should be installed/applied in such a manner that they
can be easily removed in the future without damaging the essential form and architectural
integrity of the building. Staff recommends Condition #3 to ensure that materials used
for installation/application of the signs remains consistent with SOI Rehabilitation
Standard #10.
1 Secretary of Interior Standards Additions/Alterations: Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic
building are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alteration do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.
Figure 2: Painted wall sign
CHC2 - 3
736/738 Higuera Street
ARCH-3294-2016
Page 4
4.2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic
resources and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts.
3.4.3 Retention of character-defining features: Alterations of historically-listed buildings
shall retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary building
facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that
preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes: Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or
resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the
building, its setting and architectural context…
Staff Analysis: New features added to historically-listed buildings should preserve the
original architectural character and appearance of the building, and should not introduce
new or conflicting architectural elements with the original style of the structure. The
proposed signs are minor alterations to the secondary west elevation and the primary
façade of the building. The proposed locations of the signs will not detract from or
obscure character-defining features of the Carrisa building including the cornice feature
and brick primary front façade.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under the following: Section 15301 (Existing Facilities),
because the proposed signs are minor exterior alteration to an existing building that will have no
significant impact on the environment.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines or the Secretary of Interior Standards.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Historic Inventory Report
3. Project Plans
CHC2 - 4
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIND THE
PROPOSED SIGNS ON A MASTER LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE (CARRISA
BUILDING), CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE;
736/738 HIGUERA STREET, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, C-D-H ZONE,
APPLICATION #ARCH-3294-2016
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on July 2 5, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3294-2016; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends final
approval to the project (ARCH-3294-2016), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation #9 and #10, because the proposed signs will not destroy the
property’s historic materials, features, and spatial relationships, and are compatible with
existing historic features, scale, and massing, and if removed in the future, will not
damage the essential form and architectural integrity of the building.
2. The project is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.4.3 and 3.4.4,
because the projects design proposes minor exterior additions that will not significantly
alter the original architectural character, form, or scale of the building, or introduce
elements that conflict with existing architectural elements.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) because the proposed signs are minor exterior alteration to an existing
building that will have no significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends approval of
the project to the Community Development Director, subject to the following conditions:
1. Plans submitted for Director Review shall demonstrate how installation of the entry wall
sign will not damage the transom windows.
Attachment 1
CHC2 - 5
Resolution No.XXXX-16
736/738 Higuera Street (ARCH-3294-2016)
Page 2
2. Application and materials used for the painted wall sign shall be consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and shall not damage the existing
brick wall.
3. Plans submitted for Director Review shall demonstrate a method of
installation/application for the proposed signs that in case of future removal shall not
damage the essential form and architectural integrity of the building.
4. The neon lighting and wall sign light shall not exceed 100 luxes (10 foot-candles) each,
measured at a distance of 10 feet from the sign.
On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of July 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
Attachment 1
CHC2 - 6
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 7
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 8
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
2
-
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
2
-
1
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
2
-
1
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
2
-
1
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
2
-
1
3
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
C
H
C
2
-
1
4
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Discussion of sign guidelines applicable to historic resources and historic districts
which should be included for further consideration in the draft Sign Regulations Update project
ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
e-mail: bleveille@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: OTHR-3466-2016
1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide feedback on guidelines applicable to historic properties and historic districts
which should be included in the draft Sign Regulations Update.
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Brian Leveille, Community Development Department
Zoning All zones - Citywide
Environmental
Status
Discussion of the Issues and Options report and consideration of items to be
included for further consideration in the draft Sign Regulations update does not
constitute an action under CEQA.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department is pursuing a comprehensive update of the City’s
Sign Regulations. The purpose of the update is to provide regulations which result in sign
installations that are compatible with the built environment, eliminate the potential for visual
blight from incompatible sign installations, and allow for adequate business identification.
Existing sections to be updated include size, placement, height, number of signs allowed,
allowed illumination and materials, sign types, review procedures, and exempt and prohibited
sign types. One of the considerations and objectives of the effort is to consider specific
regulations and guidelines for sign installations on historic properties and in historic districts.
Staff is working with project consultant Dyett & Bhatia, to gather feedback on concepts and draft
language to include in the working draft of the Sign Regulations Update for further review and
refinement.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Issues and Options Report
Based on review of current regulations, a survey of existing sign installations, and
stakeholder feedback, project consultant, Dyett & Bhatia, has prepared an Issues and Options
Report (Attachment 1). The Issues and Options report presents a summary of
CHC 3-1
CHC OTHR-3466-2016 (Sign Regulations Update)
Page 2
recommendations, which highlights key themes that should be addressed in the update. In
regards to historic resources, the report includes recommendations on downtown signage
regulations and for sign installations on historic properties and/or in a historic district. The
report also recommends that design review applications and review procedures for require
consideration of the proposed location of signage, which would help to ensure that signage
will not detract from the architectural character of historic structures.
For the downtown core area, much of which is within the Downtown-Historic District, the
report highlights the importance of design, and the possibility of establishing special sign
regulations for the Downtown. These regulations could include special requirements only
applicable to the Downtown such as prohibitions on certain materials or certain styles of
signs such as channel letter signs. Current regulations prohibit internally illuminated cabinet
signs in the downtown without clarifying clearly what type of signs would fit within that
definition. The updated guidelines could also include more guidance on allowed and
encouraged sign types in the Downtown with clear examples that include photographic
examples. For instance, certain types of channel letter signs and installations may not be
allowed within the downtown, but could be allowed in other areas of the City.
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance does not include any specific requirements for
the review and approval of either historic signs or signs proposed on designated historic
properties (Contributing and Master List). The Sign Regulations Update could include
specific provisions to ensure that signs comply with Secretary of Interior Standards and
Historic Preservation Guidelines to ensure that signage does not detract from the historic
character and significance of historic properties and Historic Districts. This would provide
more clarity for business owners, sign installers, and staff reviewing sign proposals to
consider historic preservation requirements in the design, planning, and review of signage.
4.0 DISCUSSION
For discussion, staff has provided the below draft recommended issue areas. These issue areas
relate to the CHC’s purview and based on CHC feedback will be further refined and incorporated
into the Sign Regulations Update. Once draft regulations are developed, the CHC will have the
opportunity to review and provide a recommendation on the draft Sign Regulations language
recommended to the Architectural Review Commission. The Architectural Review Commission
will also review the Issues and Options Report and final draft update, and provide a
recommendation to the City Council for possible adoption of the update.
Historic Districts: Updated regulations could include specific reference to requirements for signs
to comply with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG) for architectural compatibility
in historic districts (HPPG 3.2.21). This requirement would apply to historic properties in historic
districts and non-listed properties within districts. Staff anticipates that additional language
would be helpful to clarify that new signs do not need to appear historic or contain materials,
colors, or finishes that match adjacent or nearby historic properties. The intent should be to
1 HPPG 3.2.2 requires that new development in historic districts be compatible with nearby historic resources and
consistent with design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in Section 5.2 (Historic
District Descriptions)
CHC 3-2
CHC OTHR-3466-2016 (Sign Regulations Update)
Page 3
discourage signs which are clearly incompatible and out of character with the historic district.
Photographic examples would be helpful in clarifying the intent.
Historic Properties: The updated sign regulations could also include reference to requirements of
the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPPG Chapter 3.4)2 and Secretary of Interior Standards3
which apply to exterior alterations to historic resources (Attachment 1, Issues and Options
Report, page 34).
Plaques & Historic Markers: Staff also recommends pursuing the establishment of provisions for
historic markers and plaques to provide a streamlined and easy to follow procedure for cultural
and historical information to be provided in signs that fit certain parameters for size, placement,
and materials (Attachment 1, Issues and Options, page 35). The regulations would not be able to
regulate the content of such non-commercial signage however and requirements will have to be
developed which are content neutral.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Discussion of the Issues and Options report and consideration of items to be included for further
consideration in the draft Sign Regulations update does not constitute an action under CEQA.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide feedback on guidelines applicable to historic properties and historic districts
which should be included in the draft Sign Regulations Update.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Issues and Options Report
2 HPPG 3.4 includes guidelines on alterations to historic resources, which are applicable to sign installations.
Exterior alterations are required to be found consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards (3.4.2(b)) , retain
character defining features (HPPG 3.4.3), preserve architectural character, form, scale, and appearance; and should
be architecturally compatible (HPPG 3.4.4)
3 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation state that exterior alterations should not destroy historic materials; spatial
relationships should be maintained; and, will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and
proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
CHC 3-3
City of San Luis Obispo
Issues and Options Paper
June 2016
Sign Regulations Update
Prepared by
Attachment 1
CHC 3-4
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
Issues and Options Paper
June 2016
Prepared by
Attachment 1
CHC 3-5
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
A.
Background .................................................................................................................................................. 1
B.
Summary of Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 2
Principles for Sign Controls .............................................................................................. 5
1.1
Constitutional Principles .................................................................................................................... 5
A.
Content-Neutral Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions .................................................................. 5
B.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert ........................................................................................................................... 6
C.
Implications for San Luis Obispo from Reed ........................................................................................ 8
1.2
Design Principles .................................................................................................................................. 9
Existing Regulations ......................................................................................................... 11
1.1
Purpose and Applicability ................................................................................................................ 11
1.2
General Requirements for All Sign Types ................................................................................... 12
A.
Setbacks ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
B.
Sign Location ............................................................................................................................................. 14
C.
Materials ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
D.
Illumination ................................................................................................................................................ 14
1.3
Sign Types By District ...................................................................................................................... 16
A.
Consolidate District Requirements ..................................................................................................... 17
B.
Establish Special Downtown Signage Regulations ............................................................................. 18
C.
Revise Standards for Maximum Area of Signage and Number of Signs Allowed ...................... 18
1.4
Standards by Sign Type .................................................................................................................... 19
A.
Building Signs ............................................................................................................................................. 19
B.
Wall Signs ................................................................................................................................................... 20
C.
Window Signs ........................................................................................................................................... 21
D.
Awning Signs ............................................................................................................................................. 22
E.
Hanging and Suspended Signs ................................................................................................................ 23
F.
Projecting Signs .......................................................................................................................................... 24
G.
Roof Signs .................................................................................................................................................. 25
1.5
Freestanding Signs ............................................................................................................................. 26
A.
Monument Signs ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Attachment 1
CHC 3-6
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
ii
B.
Pole and Pylon Signs ................................................................................................................................ 28
1.6
Exempt Signs ...................................................................................................................................... 30
1.7
Prohibited Signs ................................................................................................................................. 31
1.8
Temporary Signs ............................................................................................................................... 32
1.9
Murals .................................................................................................................................................. 34
1.10
Historic Signs .................................................................................................................................. 34
1.11
Administration and Enforcement ............................................................................................... 35
1.12
Exceptions to Sign Regulations ................................................................................................... 36
1.13
Sign Programs ................................................................................................................................. 37
1.14
Design Review Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 38
1.15
Nonconforming Signs .................................................................................................................... 39
1.16
Rules for Measurement ................................................................................................................ 40
Appendix: Sign Type Definitions .................................................................................... 43
Attachment 1
CHC 3-7
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review - June 2016
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Graphic Example: Measurement of Sign Area .................................................................. 41
List of Tables
Table 1: Distinctions in Sign Types Addressed in Reed v. Town of Gilbert ....................................... 6
Table 2: Sign Standards by Zoning District ........................................................................................ 17
Table 3: Building Sign Standards by Sign Type ................................................................................... 19
Table 4: Non-Residential Freestanding Signs ..................................................................................... 27
Table 5: Residential Freestanding Signs ............................................................................................... 27
Table 6: Exempt Signs .............................................................................................................................. 31
Attachment 1
CHC 3-8
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-9
1
Introduction
A. BACKGROUND
The quantity, quality, size, and appearance of on-premise business signs, directional signage and
building identification signs in a place have a direct effect on the overall character of the community.
They attract shoppers, help visitors find businesses, hotels, restaurants and services, and can also add
to (or detract from) a community’s charm, personality, and appeal.
With these issues in mind, the City of San Luis Obispo is revising its sign regulations to ensure that
the City’s sign regulations are consistent with community desires to protect and enhance the charac-
ter of San Luis Obispo’s built and natural environment, as reflected in numerous policies of the City’s
2014 General Plan Land Use Element. The project also provides an opportunity to craft regulations
that will achieve the City’s objective of enacting clear, concise, user-friendly and legally-defensible
sign regulations.
To ensure that the new sign regulations will accomplish what the City wants, Staff and Dyett & Bhatia,
the consultant hired to prepare the new regulations, designed a process to obtain input from those
most familiar with the current rules and procedures as well as from the broader community. The
first group includes property and business owners, architects, representatives of the sign industry,
and members of the Planning and Architectural Review Commissions and the Cultural Heritage
Committee, who participated in a series of interviews and submitted written comments. The City has
also created a website http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-devel-
opment/planning-zoning/sign-regulations-update-1720, where the public can receive continuing
updates on the project, review draft update documents, find out about workshops and public hear-
ings, and submit comments. Public workshops and public hearings will include sessions with Archi-
tectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee before the draft update documents
are completed for review by the City Council for adoption.
This paper is intended to explore strategies for incorporating desired flexibility in a way that meets
citywide objectives for good design while meeting critical legal requirements for sign regulation.
Overall, the framework for San Luis Obispo’s Sign Regulations, including both standards and proce-
dures, is sound. Stakeholders gave the City high marks in comparison to other Central Coast munic-
ipalities with respect to both procedures and outcome. They were particularly complementary re-
garding provisions that have shifted the majority of decisions to Staff. At the same time, there were
concerns about requirements that do not provide sufficient flexibility.
With the City of San Luis Obispo’s diversity of land uses, districts, and zones it is difficult to apply a
single set of sign standards and expect that they will meet the needs of every user or be the right size
for every situation. Most of the stakeholders who provided input for this paper have considerable
Attachment 1
CHC 3-10
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
2
familiarity with City procedures and sign technology as well as design expertise. However, San Luis
Obispo has many small business owners who often have difficulty understanding the Regulations
and for whom the time and expense of compliance is a burden.
The Sign Regulations update provides an opportunity for San Luis Obispo to improve its regulatory
framework by addressing these and other concerns and producing a set of equitable regulations that
are easier for all code-users to implement. Applying “best practices” for sign regulation in ways that
will meet the City’s particular needs can help to achieve the community’s desire for signs that are
appropriate to their specific settings and effectively maintain and enhance San Luis Obispo’s charac-
ter while meeting the need for adequate communication and ensuring conformance with applicable
federal and State requirements. To achieve these objectives, sign regulations need to be flexible while
conforming to some basic principles that are discussed in the next section of this report.
B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on interviews with stakeholders and City staff as well as a technical review, several themes have
emerged. These themes, outlined below, can be used to identify key issues for the update to address.
• Increasing clarity about requirements and the basis for making discretionary decisions.
• Ensuring that signage is appropriate for and enhances architectural and district character.
• Providing increased flexibility that allows for variations in site and building design.
• Reflecting current sign technology and promoting energy conservation.
• Improving coordination with other municipal requirements and regulations applicable to
signage.
• Consistency with applicable State and federal requirements including, but not limited to, the
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Gilbert.
This paper explores several potential changes to San Luis Obispo’s Sign Regulations to address these
issues. These changes include the following:
• Revising definitions to ensure that terms used in the current Sign Regulations and by Staff
when reviewing applications appear in the list of Definitions (e.g., channel letters, can lights,
cabinet sign, etc.).
• Establishing and clarifying (with graphics) rules for sign measurement that are easy to un-
derstand and that accommodates content that does not neatly fit inside a rectangle.
• Revising the requirements for window signs to address certain problems, including signs that
blocks views into the interior of buildings by covering an excessive amount of window area.
• Establishing more specific findings that will clarify bases for approving deviations from
standards, including consideration of an approach that allows Staff approval of limited di-
mensional variations and requires ARC approval only for more substantial modifications.
Revised findings should clearly distinguish adjustments from variances.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-11
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
3
• Augmenting provisions for sign programs to include more detail about objectives of sign
programs, applicability, and procedures for modification.
• Identifying the Director’s authority to publish separate requirements concerning the format
of and information required in sign permit applications, rather than providing detailed ap-
plication requirements in the regulations.
• Including a statement of principles for sign regulation that is the basis for making discretion-
ary decisions, including approving deviations from standards. Including this statement of
principles in the guidelines for signs, as well.
• Revising the Signage Guidelines to incorporate principles for sign regulation in order to pro-
vide direction to ensure that signage is consistent with the City’s aesthetic values. Clearly
distinguishing the guidelines from standards. Including provisions in the Sign Regulations
that state how Guidelines are used to review applications. Identifying Guidelines that may
be more appropriate to incorporate as standards.
• Revising provisions for temporary signs as necessary to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Reed and incorporating provisions that will be easy and inexpensive to
implement. Ensuring that Sign Regulations establish a clear and legally defensible public
purpose for any type of temporary sign that is subject to a different standard (e.g., temporary
signs located on properties that are actively marketed for sale or lease).
• Identifying any signs that are currently classified as temporary but might be categorized as
exempt from review if they conform to specific requirements (e.g. building construction
signs, way finding signs that identify specific businesses within retail complexes, etc.)
• Revising application requirements and other applicable provisions to require design review
applications to indicate where signage will be located on buildings and sites.
• Improving provisions to clarify requirements applicable to signs on landmarked buildings
or within historic districts, with cross-references to other applicable Municipal Code provi-
sions, policies, and/or guidelines to improve ease of use.
• Revising standards that unreasonably restrict the placement of signs in order to avoid the
need for unnecessary variances. Examples of standards to potentially revise include those
that restrict the placement of signs to the facade with a public entrance, even where entrance
does not face public right of way, as well as standards prescribing the setbacks required for
the visibility triangle.
• Revising as necessary to ensure that standards reflect current sign technology and promote
energy conservation.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-12
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
4
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-13
5
Principles for Sign Controls
1.1 Constitutional Principles
The First Amendment, applicable to states and municipalities through the Fourteenth Amendment,
prohibits the making of laws that “abridge the freedom of speech.”1 The Supreme Court has not in-
terpreted this right as absolute. Rather, in certain situations, government restriction of speech passes
constitutional muster. In general, municipalities can exercise their police power to regulate signs –
which constitute speech – in their jurisdictions.
A. CONTENT-NEUTRAL TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS
In order to survive judicial review, sign reg-
ulations must be content neutral. The most
common content-neutral regulations are
“time, place, and manner” restrictions. As
the name suggests, these are restrictions that
limit the time, manner, and place of the
speech at issue. For instance, time, place,
and manner restrictions may include re-
strictions on the square footage of a sign,
where a sign may be located, the manner in
which a sign is illuminated, and in the case
of portable signs, such as sandwich-board
signs, a restriction on the time they can be
displayed (e.g., only during the operating
hours of the business with which they are as-
sociated).
Over the years, the courts have upheld a va-
riety of sign ordinances as valid time, place, or manner restrictions. To be upheld as constitutionally
valid, such regulations must be content-neutral, serve a significant government interest, and leave
open ample alternative avenues for expression.
1 U.S. Const., Amdt. 1.
Source: The New Yorker, November 9, 2015
Attachment 1
CHC 3-14
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
6
B. REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT
In June 2015, the Supreme Court broadly expanded upon what it means to discriminate on the basis
of content in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.2 As this decision impacts most municipalities’ sign codes, in-
cluding a few provisions in San Luis Obispo’s current sign regulations, the case and its implications
are discussed below.
Majority Opinion
Gilbert, Arizona had a sign ordinance that, as the table below shows, treated certain categories of
noncommercial signs differently.
Table 1: Distinctions in Sign Types Addressed in Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Type of Sign
Maximum
Size Durational Limit
Allowed in Right-of-
Way?
Numerical
Limit
Temporary Directional Re-
lated to a “Qualifying Event”
6 ft. tall, 6
sq. ft.
Up to 12 hours before
and 1 hour after event No
4 per
property
Ideological 20 sq. ft. None Yes None
Political 32 sq. ft.
Anytime before election
and up to 10 days after Yes None
The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, held that these distinctions, as adopted by the town, were
content-based regulations of speech that could not survive strict scrutiny, and were thus unconstitu-
tional.
The majority opinion prepared by Justice Thomas reasoned that a regulation is content-based if:
• On its face, the regulation “draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys,”
whether by regulating a particular subject matter of speech or defining the speech that is to
be regulated by the speech’s purpose or function.3
• The regulation cannot be “justified without reference to the content of the regulated
speech.”4
• The regulation was adopted because of the government’s “disagreement with the message
[the speech] conveys.”5
2 576 U.S. ____, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015).
3 Id. at 2227.
4 Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5 Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Attachment 1
CHC 3-15
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
7
Here, Gilbert’s sign code was treated as content-based on its face, because the relevant restrictions
“depend entirely on the communicative content of the sign.”6 The majority reasoned that:
If a sign informs its reader of the time and place a book club will discuss John Locke’s Two
Treatises of Government [which would make it a “qualifying event sign”], that sign will be
treated differently from a sign expressing the view that one should vote for one of Locke’s fol-
lowers in an upcoming election [a “political sign”], and both signs will be treated differently
from a sign expressing an ideological view rooted in Locke’s theory of government [an “ideo-
logical sign”]. More to the point, the Church’s signs inviting people to attend its worship services
are treated differently from signs conveying other types of ideas.7
As a result, despite the local government’s benign, content-neutral motive for enacting the sign code,
it failed to survive strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that a regulation is nar-
rowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. It is exceedingly rare for regulations to survive strict
scrutiny; indeed, the test is often called strict in theory, but fatal in fact.
Justice Alito’s Concurrence
Justice Alito, with whom Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor joined, concurred in the Court’s opinion,
writing separately to provide clarity to municipalities whose sign codes would be called into question
post-Reed. It should be noted that, unlike the Court’s majority opinion, his opinion is persuasive,
rather than binding, precedent; it does not have the force of law.
Judge Alito listed the following rules that, in his opinion, would not be content-based and, as a result,
would likely survive a constitutional challenge.8
• “Rules regulating the size of signs. These rules may distinguish among signs based on any
content-neutral criteria, including any relevant criteria listed below.”
• “Rules regulating the locations in which signs may be placed. These rules may distinguish
between freestanding signs and those attached to buildings.”
• “Rules distinguishing between lighted and unlighted signs.”
• “Rules distinguishing between signs with fixed messages and electronic signs with messages
that change.”
• “Rules that distinguish between the placement of signs on private and public property.”
• “Rules distinguishing between the placement of signs on commercial and residential prop-
erty.”
• “Rules restricting the total number of signs allowed per mile of roadway.”
• “Rules distinguishing between on-premises and off-premises signs.”
• “Rules imposing time restrictions on signs advertising a one-time event.”9
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 2233.
9 It should be noted that a rule imposing a time restriction for a sign advertising a one-time event is, under the analysis put
forth in the majority opinion, a content-based regulation. Indeed, as Justice Kagan stated in her opinion, concurring in
the judgment:
Attachment 1
CHC 3-16
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
8
C. IMPLICATIONS FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM REED
Reed clarifies the standard for what constitutes a content-based provision. Based on this standard,
sign regulations should not include different treatments based on the sign’s message. In response to
the Reed decision, San Luis Obispo’s Sign Regulations should be amended to include a number of
general provisions intended to ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution and the California Con-
stitution. These include an affirmation of the City’s policy to regulate signs in a manner that is con-
tent neutral. Another necessary provision to add is one stating that a protected noncommercial mes-
sage of any type may be substituted for any permitted commercial message, provided that the sign
structure is legal. These provisions can protect the City from mistakenly prohibiting the display of a
non-commercial message, such as campaign sign, where commercial sign would be allowed. The
Sign Regulations should also be amended to include a severability clause, stating that if any specific
language or provision in the regulations is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the regulations
remain valid.
In addition, it would be advisable for the City to establish consistent standards for temporary signs
based on the zone in which they are to be located (i.e. residential or commercial). These standards
should not make distinctions based on whether the temporary sign has a commercial and non-com-
mercial message or whether the sign is advertising a yard sale in comparison to another commercial
message.
With these exceptions, it appears that the existing Sign Regulations avoid a number of the trouble-
some regulations that may conflict with the Reed decision and other provisions in statutory and case
law. Except for rules for gasoline price signs and real estate signs, both of which are provided for in
State law, the current regulations do not establish regulations that unreasonably distinguish among
uses or impose other restrictions that would be considered content-based message regulation. The
justification for some restrictions, such as the prohibition on day-glow painted signs in Section
15.40.300, presumably to avoid creating a distraction or confusion with traffic control signage, could
be strengthened to ensure they survive strict scrutiny.
Although the Sign Regulations do not include many provisions that are likely to be subject to chal-
lenge as content-based regulation, it should be noted that comments from some stakeholders sug-
gested that the City may be using its discretionary authority to impose restrictions on the height of
letters, the number of business names, and other aspects of content. The updated Sign Regulations
should establish procedures to would avoid this as proposed in Section 1.14.
Even in trying (commendably) to limit today's decision, Justice Alito’s concurrence highlights its far-reaching effects.
According to Justice Alito, the majority does not subject to strict scrutiny regulations of “signs advertising a one-time
event. But of course it does. On the majority's view, a law with an exception for such signs “singles out specific subject
matter for differential treatment” and “define[s] regulated speech by particular subject matter.” Indeed, the precise
reason the majority applies strict scrutiny here is that “the Code singles out signs bearing a particular message: the
time and location of a specific event.”
Attachment 1
CHC 3-17
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
9
1.2 Design Principles
A set of design principles for signage can establish a sound footing on which to base general require-
ments and to review proposals for new signs. The principles should also be incorporated in the design
guidelines, which could provide examples of how they can be expressed in different types of signage
in different locations. One of the most basic principles is that signage must make a positive contri-
bution to the general appearance of the street and to the district, which is particularly important in
commercial areas. Some other widely accepted principles and policies for signage are:
Architectural Compatibility. A sign (including its supporting structure, if any) should be designed
as an integral design element of a building’s architecture and should be architecturally compatible,
including color and scale, with any building that the sign is to be attached to, as well as with sur-
rounding structures. A sign that covers a window or that spills over “natural” boundaries or archi-
tectural features and obscures parts of upper floors of buildings is detrimental to visual order and
will not be permitted.
Consistency with Area Character. A sign should be consistent with distinct area or district charac-
teristics and incorporate common design elements, such as sign materials or themes. Where a sign is
located in close proximity to a residential area, the sign should be designed and located to minimize
visibility from adjacent residential neighborhoods and control effects such as spill-over light or glare.
Legibility. The size and proportion of the elements of the sign’s message, including logos, letters,
icons, and other graphic images, should be selected based on the anticipated distance and travel speed
of the viewer. Sign messages oriented towards pedestrians should be smaller than those oriented to-
wards automobile drivers. Colors chosen for the sign text and/or graphics should have sufficient
contrast with the sign background in order to be easily read during both day and night hours. Because
the imposition of restrictions on sign colors, fonts, and font sizes may be viewed as a regulation of
sign content, such requirements should not be imposed through the discretionary imposition of con-
ditions but may be acceptable if incorporated as standards when supported by clear public purpose
objectives such as maintaining traffic safety.
Readability. A sign message should be easily recognized and designed in a clear, unambiguous and
concise manner, so that a viewer can understand or make sense of what appears on the sign. Excessive
use of large areas of several colors can create competition for the eye and significantly reduce reada-
bility.
Visibility. A sign should be conspicuous and readily distinguishable from its surroundings so a
viewer can easily see the information the sign communicates.
These principles are consistent with the stated Intent and Purpose of the Sign Regulations10 and are
also reflected in the Signage Guidelines.11 The Sign Regulation update is an opportunity to also codify
10 See Section 15.40.110.
11 See Section 15.40.470.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-18
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
10
these principles as a statement of principles or criteria that are used as a basis for making discretion-
ary decisions. Doing so would help to address stakeholders’ concerns about the need to spell out the
findings and determination required for decisions. Furthermore, providing a clear statement of over-
arching objectives for regulating signs is important to ensuring legal compliance. Providing an ex-
plicit expression of a set of design principles for signage can help to establish a sound legal footing
on which to base general requirements and conduct review of proposals for new signs.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-19
11
Existing Regulations
San Luis Obispo’s Sign Regulations, located in Chapter 15.40 of its Municipal Code, establish general
standards and requirements for on-premises signs as well as requirements applicable to different
types of signs and different uses in specific zones. These regulations include a series of general pro-
visions applicable to all on-premises signs (Article I) followed by a list of exempt signs (Article II),
prohibited signs (Article III) and sign standards (Article IV). Article IV includes both general re-
quirements applicable to all or most sign types (e.g. rules for measurement, setbacks, height and lo-
cation, illumination, and clearance) and more specific sign standards by zone (Section 15.40.460) and
sign type (Section 15.40.470). In addition to providing regulations that establish requirements appli-
cable to different types of signs in different zones, Chapter 15.40 also includes Signage Guidelines
(Section 15.40.470). Below, these existing provisions of the Sign Regulations are discussed and ana-
lyzed.
1.1 Purpose and Applicability
In general, the statement of purpose in a municipality’s sign regulations is intended to establish the
public purpose for the regulations and identify the significant government interest in the regulatory
area. The statement of purpose can also be used to provide a basis for discretionary decisions. Article
I (General Provisions) of the existing Sign Regulations establishes both the purpose for Chapter 15.40
and its applicability. The purpose includes a statement that the regulations are intended to regulate
the time, place and manner and not the content of the signage. In the wake of the Reed decision, the
City should consider whether the Regulations should specifically address its interest in regulating
temporary signage and establish any basis for distinctions the provisions make between different
types of temporary signs. The update also provides and opportunity to clarify the scope and applica-
bility of the Sign Regulations.
Article I now includes a relatively brief statement that the Chapter applies to all property and land
within the “jurisdiction” of the City of San Luis Obispo. It would likely be helpful to users if the
revised regulations offered further detail about the regulatory scope of this Chapter, such as by clar-
ifying the Regulations’ applicability to the public right-of-way and to any areas subject to specific or
other special plans that include different or more restrictive regulations or guidelines. It should also
explicitly state whether the regulations apply to property owned or used by the City of San Luis
Obispo and other public entities.
Article I should also be amended to define signs for purposes of the Sign Regulations and provide a
non-exclusive list of items that are excluded from the definition of a “sign.” This list should include
murals that do not advertise or promote any business and are not general advertising for hire. This
Attachment 1
CHC 3-20
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
12
would replace the provisions in Section 15.40.470(J) of the existing regulations, which state that mu-
rals without “text or any specific commercial message…. can be considered public art,” but do not
include a definition of mural. Other items that could be on this list of items that do not constitute a
“sign” are shopping carts bearing the name of the establishment that owns them and certain insignia
on vehicles (e.g. license plate frames). These items should be clearly distinguished from signs that
are exempt from permitting requirements for reasons such as their purpose (e.g. railroad crossings),
ownership (e.g. State agencies), or other attributes (e.g. non-commercial flags that comply meet di-
mensional and location requirements).
Policy Questions
• Does Section 15.40.110 adequately express the reasons for the Sign Regulations the City has
enacted?
• Are there other items that should be specifically excluded from the definition of a “sign”?
1.2 General Requirements for All Sign Types
Article IV of the current Sign Regulations includes rules that are applicable to all or a wide variety of
signs regardless of the district in which they are located as well as the sign standards applicable in
each of the zoning districts and the standards applicable to different types of signs. This section of
the report focuses on the general rules that govern signage in San Luis Obispo, which include Article
I (General Provisions) and the first part of Article IV (Sign Standards), which covers rules for meas-
urement, setbacks, height, location, illumination, and clearance.
The general requirements could include provisions that identify the Community Development Di-
rector as the Staff authorized to enforce and administer Chapter 15.40 and should also specify who
It would be helpful if the Sign Regulations clarified their
applicability to the public right of way.
Murals that do not include any specific commercial mes-
sage should be expressly excluded from the definition of
a “sign”
Attachment 1
CHC 3-21
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
13
has authority for interpreting the regulations. The general provisions should include sections regard-
ing message neutrality, substitution of non-commercial messages, severability, and a statement that
the distinction between on-site /off-site signage only applies to commercial messages. Requirements
like these are particularly important in light of case law.
The General Requirements should be amended to consolidate provisions that are applicable to all
signs that are currently located in other parts of the existing ordinance. These provisions include
rules for measurement (Section 15.40.400), setbacks and permitted sign locations (Sections 15.40.410
and 15.40.420), and illumination (Section 15.40.430). This Article could also be amended to include
the requirements for maintenance (Article VII, Sign Maintenance and Abandoned Signs).
Most of the provisions in this part of the updated Sign Regulations would carry forward existing
rules, augmented with graphics and clarifying text as needed. However, substantive revisions to ex-
isting rules on setbacks (Section 15.40.410) and sign location (Section 15.40.420) should be consid-
ered based on comments from stakeholders, as discussed below.
A. SETBACKS
The current regulations establish a “visibility triangle” at intersections. Within this “triangle,” signs
may not exceed three feet unless the Public Works Director and Community Development Director
or the ARC approves an exception based on a determination that the proposed sign will not interfere
with the line of sight of vehicles or pedestrians. This requirement generally conforms to Chapter
10.60 of the Municipal Code, which establishes a 3-foot height limit for plants, structures, and other
solid objects at intersections not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal, but authorizes the City
Engineer to determine visibility requirements at controlled intersections.12 Section 17.16.020(E)(2)(f)
of the Zoning Code incorporates the same requirement and also allows the City Engineer to deter-
mine visibility requirements. In this situation and others that are governed by requirements in other
parts of the Municipal Code the sign regulations should include a cross-reference that clarifies the
City’s requirements.
Stakeholders expressed concern about the cost of obtaining ARC approval even when there is no
evidence that the proposed height would create a safety hazard. Although the current regulations
require approval of the Public Works Director if the sign is approved by the Community Develop-
ment Director, it is unclear whether Public Works approval is also required if the ARC has to make
the decision. Given that the decision must be based on a determination regarding traffic safety, a
determination that may not be within the expertise of the ARC, it may make sense to allow approval
by the Community Development and Public Works director (or City Engineer) in all cases or to
cross-reference Section 10.60.020, which assigns responsibility for the traffic safety determination to
the City Engineer.
Restrictions on the height of signs, fences, and other features that may obstruct visibility are common,
and height limits typically vary from 2.5 to 3.5 feet. There is variation, however, as to how the size of
the triangle is measured. In some cases, the functional classification of the street (i.e., local, collector,
or arterial) determines whether the length of the two sides of the triangle is measured along the curb
12 See Section 10.60.020.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-22
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
14
line or the edge of the right-of-way. The length of the two sides may also depend on the type of traffic
control at the intersection. San Diego, for example, measures the two sides of the triangle from 15 to
25 feet depending on whether the area is at the intersection of a street and a driveway, a street and an
alley, or two streets. The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which establishes
Caltrans standards, requires no parking zones 20 feet from the curb return of an intersection. The
result is that the triangle at the intersection of two arterials is larger than at the corner of two collector
or local streets.
B. SIGN LOCATION
Section 15.40.420 requires that building signs be located on a building face with a public entrance.
The current regulations authorize the Community Development Director to approve exceptions to
this requirement when the orientation of the public entrance does not provide sufficient visibility.
However, the need for an exception creates additional cost and delays for applicants. Revising the
standard to explicitly allow signage to be on a wall that does not include an entrance, subject to com-
pliance with all other applicable standards, would meet the intent of the existing rule and allow min-
isterial approval of signs in such situations.
C. MATERIALS
Several stakeholders suggested that the regulations provide more detail about the type of materials
that should be used for signs. The signage guidelines provide information about the materials that
are appropriate for some specific types of signage, but there are no standards providing requirements
for this aspect of design. Signs made of wood, metal or other materials with carved or “applied let-
tering” are mentioned as appropriate for projecting signs that are “architecturally compatible” and
the guidelines for free-standing post signs state that letter should be “carved, routed or applied” ra-
ther than painted. Stakeholders mentioned acrylic or vinyl letters applied to a sign as examples of
undesirable materials.
The updated regulations should establish basic requirements for sign materials to ensure that per-
manent signs are both aesthetically pleasing and durable. This could include a prohibition on using
plywood, pressed board, non-exterior wood products, and paper. The regulations may provide more
flexibility for temporary signs. Provisions indicating what constitutes appropriate use of vinyl or
acrylic letters may be best incorporated in guidelines rather than as standards. The Community De-
sign Guidelines (June 2010) state that internally illuminated cabinet signs (can signs) are “strongly
discouraged” (p. 80). This advisory guideline could be expressed as a prohibition while allowing
approval of an exception when justified.
D. ILLUMINATION
Section 15.40.030 of the existing Regulations establishes standards and requirements that are in-
tended to ensure that lighting for signs do not create glare that is hazardous to pedestrian or vehicle
traffic, intrusive and disturbing to surrounding uses, or inappropriate for the district. This section
also prohibits illumination when a business is not open or after 10 p.m., whichever is later, and in
residential zones (except for directory signs). The existing provisions include some restrictions on
maximum illumination levels, which are measured in luxes and foot-candles, which are a generally
accepted unit of measurement for illumination.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-23
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
15
Most of the standards are quantified, which makes it easy to determine whether or not a sign meets
the illumination requirements. Others, such as requiring that lighting does not create a hazardous
glare, may require a more subjective determination and, as a result, may not always be applied in the
same way or in a manner that achieves desired results. Stakeholders also identified situations where
signage illumination is inappropriate given the design of other site features. It was also suggested that
it would be helpful to refine the definition of sign area to address issues such as spillover illumination
that makes a sign appear much larger than would otherwise be allowed.
The Regulations include a general requirement that illumination may not create a hazardous glare
and that the light source must be shielded from view. The Signage Guidelines do not include any
additional guidance for illumination. Moreover, although the existing Regulations allow Electronic
Message Centers in all commercial districts subject to architectural review, there are no additional
regulations or guidelines for signage with moving images except for requiring Architectural Review.
The Federal Highway Administration and others who have conducted research on the potential ef-
fects of electronic moving image signs use the term Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs
(CEVMS) to identify this type of signage. CEVMS is defined as a self-luminous advertising sign that
depicts any kind of light, color, or message change which ranges from static images to image se-
quences to full motion video. Digital sign is another term used to describe these signs, which use an
electrical display, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or light-emitting diode (LED), to provide
changeable messages or graphics.
Several stakeholders expressed objections to electronic message displays and, in particular, those with
moving images. In addition to requiring architectural review for any signage containing “moving,
rotating, flashing or otherwise animated light or component,” the regulations limit the size of an
electronic message displays to 10 percent of the total sign area on a pole sign or 8 square feet if
Illuminated signs, such as the one to the left, can add color and personality to the street; they may also create a hazard if they
are too bright. Several stakeholders expressed objections to electronic message displays (right).
Attachment 1
CHC 3-24
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
16
mounted on a building or freestanding.13 These standards would allow moving images, such as time-
and-temperature displays, as well as other types of animation. The type of digital signage that gasoline
service stations use would not be treated as “moving images” because the frequency with which price
signs are changed sufficiently limited to avoid any perception of flickering or flashing.
In addition to dimensional limits, another way to control the impact of electronic displays is to reg-
ulate their brightness or luminosity. The brightness standard for these displays can be different from
the restrictions applied to traditional illuminated signs because the latter do not usually operate dur-
ing daytime. Other standards could regulate the interval between messages, intensity of illumination,
and further restrict the types of sites to prevent annoyance such as a prohibition on CEVMS on signs
adjacent to or visible from residential districts. The City could also require photo-sensors that adjust
light output based on ambient lighting conditions.
Policy Questions
• Should the Sign Regulations for intersections be revised to allow the Community Develop-
ment Director and City Engineer to approve adjustments to the view triangle requirements
without requiring review by the ARC? Should the standards be modified to tie the length of
the measurement to the street classification, type of traffic control and other factors?
• Should the requirement for sign location be modified to specifically allow signage on a wall
that is visible from the public right-of-way when there is no public entrance facing the right-
of-way?
• Should the new regulations include standards for sign materials and specifically prohibit cer-
tain types of signs such as vinyl backlit signs or cabinet signs?
• Should San Luis Obispo establish more specific standards for illumination?
• Would it be a good idea to impose additional requirements on Electronic Message Centers
and other digital signs?
1.3 Sign Types By District
San Luis Obispo’s existing Sign Regulations establish standards that apply based on the zoning dis-
trict in which the sign is located. See Section 15.40.460. The zoning district determines:
• Which sign types are allowed;
• The total number of signs allowed, either per street frontage (in residential zones) or per
tenant space (in non-residential zones);
• The maximum cumulative sign area allowed, per tenant space;
• Any special restrictions on illumination; and
• Any special size restrictions.
13 See Sections 15.40.470(K) & 15.40.480.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-25
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
17
Table 2: Sign Standards by Zoning District, lists the current signage standards by district and also
summarizes the applicable height and bulk standards and types allowed for each zoning district. The
table also identifies and cross-references special restrictions regarding illumination and size applica-
ble in some districts.
Table 2: Sign Standards by Zoning District
Zoning District Minimum Lot Area/FAR
Total Number of Signs Al-
lowed
Maximum Cumulative Sign
Area Per Tenant Space
All Residential
6000 sq. ft. and 7 units/acre
/5000 sq. ft. and 12-35
units/acre 1/frontage 20 sq. ft.
O Office 5000 sq. ft and FAR 1.5 2/tenant space 50 sq. ft.
C-N Neighborhood Com-
mercial 6000 sq. ft. and FAR 2.0 2/tenant space 50 sq. ft.
C-R Retail Commercial 9000 sq. ft. and FAR 3.0 4/tenant space 200 sq. ft.
C-D Downtown Commer-
cial
3000 sq. ft. and FAR 3-3.75
w/o bonus 4/tenant space 200 sq. ft.
C-C Community Commer-
cial 6000 sq. ft and FAR 2.0 2/tenant space 100 sq. ft.
C-T Tourist Commercial 9000 sq. ft. and FAR 2.5 2/tenant space 200 sq. ft.
C-S Service Commercial 9000 sq. ft. and FAR 1.5 2/tenant space 200 sq. ft.
M Manufacturing 9000 sq. ft. and FAR 1.5 2/tenant space 200 sq. ft.
PF Public Facility 6000 sq. ft and FAR 1.0-2.0 2/tenant space 100 sq. ft.
C/OS Conservation/Open
Space/AG Agriculture 5 acres 2/tenant space 50 sq. ft.
BP Business Park .5 acre and FAR .6 -1.0
A. CONSOLIDATE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
Stakeholders and Staff have suggested that while it may be helpful to enact separate regulations for
the Downtown, the other non-residential districts may not be sufficiently distinct to warrant separate
sets of regulations. Districts could be consolidated based on factors that contribute to their desired
character such as the scale of development, types of use, and whether their primary orientation is
toward pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Just as the current regulations have a single set of standards for
the Agricultural (AG) and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zoning districts, it is likely that one set
of standards could regulate signage in other groups of commercial zoning districts in a way that better
reflects the objectives and policies of the General Plan and other adopted plans, without sacrificing
the quality of permitted signage. For example, one group might include Retail Commercial (C-R),
Tourist-Commercial (C-T), and Service Commercial (C-S) zoning districts that focus on arterial
streets and serve the entire community as well as tourists and travelers. Providing standards for
groups of zoning districts would have the benefit of enhancing of the usability of the regulations and
be in alignment with the recommendations received from stakeholders.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-26
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
18
B. ESTABLISH SPECIAL DOWNTOWN SIGNAGE REGULATIONS
Downtown San Luis Obispo is the heart of the city; nowhere in the city is design more important. As
a result, it may be appropriate to establish a more detailed set of regulations and guidelines intended
to maintain the quality and character of signage in the Downtown and its overall aesthetics. These
regulations could incorporate provisions that would not be applicable to other areas, such as prohi-
bitions on certain materials or certain styles of signs, such as channel letter signs, as some stakehold-
ers proposed. Another option would be to allow extra sign area as an incentive to encourage signs
that incorporate particularly desirable materials or styles.
If the City establishes a sign overlay district for Downtown, it would also be appropriate to have
design guidelines that are specifically intended to provide additional guidance. The existing Com-
munity Design Guidelines establish goals and provide very specific direction, much of which reads
like standards for downtown development. The existing guidelines include a section on signs, which
is discussed in further detail in another section of this document, and include some provisions that
appear directly applicable to Downtown signage. However, the current guidelines do not provide any
specific guidance for downtown signage. Guidelines specifically crafted for the Downtown can es-
tablish principles for Downtown signage and provide photographic examples of signs that would be
appropriate and desired in order to provide business owners with a visual idea of optimal signage in
the area.
C. REVISE STANDARDS FOR MAXIMUM AREA OF SIGNAGE AND
NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED
The current regulations limit the number of signs per tenant space (in non-residential zones). They
also limit the maximum, cumulative sign area per tenant space. These limitations are based solely
on the zoning district in which the tenant is located but do not take site design, lot area, building
floor area, and other characteristics into consideration. This approach affords some businesses too
much signage, particularly if they are located on small sites with one frontage, while others may be
at a disadvantage because they are on a large site and/or a site with multiple frontages facing public
streets or highways.
For instance, under the current regulations, a small business with only 15 feet of frontage, located in
the Downtown Commercial zoning district, is allowed a maximum of four signs and a cumulative
sign area of 200 square feet, which may result in sign clutter and signage that detracts from building
design. On the other hand, a business occupying a 20,000 square foot corner lot in the Tourist Com-
mercial zoning district would be allowed fewer signs than the hypothetical small business in down-
town; it would be permitted a maximum of two signs and 200 square feet of cumulative sign area
under the existing regulations. A different approach would be to establish a sliding scale that relates
the number of signs and maximum cumulative sign area to the size of the site, the length of the
frontage, and/or the number of frontages that face a public street or highway. As some stakeholders
noted, it is best if a sign is proportional; tying the allowable size and number of signs to the site in
this fashion would help to ensure signs are right-sized for the specific circumstances.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-27
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
19
Policy Questions
• Would it be a good idea to revise the standards so they apply to grouping of districts that
better reflect characteristics such as the desired scale of development, types of use, and
whether their primary orientation is toward pedestrian or vehicle traffic?
• Should the City establish a signage overlay district for the Downtown district with additional
standards and specific guidelines?
• Should the regulations be revised to incorporate a sliding scale or another approach that
creates a better fit between the maximum number of signs and sign area per tenant space?
1.4 Standards by Sign Type
A. BUILDING SIGNS
The term “building sign” means any sign that is painted, marked on, or attached to the face of a
building wall, window, or canopy attached to a building. Table 3 summarizes the existing standards
for all types of building signs.
Table 3: Building Sign Standards by Sign Type
Type Location Maximum Number Maximum Area
Wall All districts on building face with pub-
lic entrance
2/tenant space 100 sq. ft. or 15% of the building
face to which sign is attached,
whichever is less.
6 sq. ft for changeable copy signs
Window All commercial districts within 12
inches of window face
None 24 sq. ft. or 15% of window
area, whichever is less
Awning All commercial districts; at least 8 feet
above public ROW or private side-
walk
1/tenant space Signs on awnings cannot exceed
25% of the main area of the
awning or 25 sq. ft. in size,
whichever is greater.
Projecting Office, Neighborhood Commercial,
Downtown Commercial, Community
Commercial, Retail Commercial and
Tourist Commercial districts; at-
tached to façade with public entrance;
at least 8 feet above public ROW or
private sidewalk
1/tenant space O: 6 sq. ft.
C-N, C-D, C-C: 12 sq. ft.
C-R, C-T: 24 sq. ft.
Hanging or Sus-
pended
All districts on building façade with
public entrance; at least 8 feet above
public ROW or private sidewalk
1/tenant space 8 sq. ft.
Directory Signs All districts on exterior wall if building
has no setback
1/development site 12 sq. ft with individual letters
up to 6 inches in height
Attachment 1
CHC 3-28
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
20
B. WALL SIGNS
San Luis Obispo’s current regulations require that wall signs and other sign types be installed on a
building façade with a public entrance, regardless of whether the entrance faces the public right-of-
way or the building has more than one frontage.14 Several stakeholders pointed out that this has made
it necessary for some tenants occupying interior spaces to obtain the ARC’s approval for an excep-
tion. Because the regulations do not take the size of a site or number of frontages into consideration,
the current rules could also be problematic for establishments on large sites or sites with more than
one street or highway frontage.
In addition, to avoid the need for processing an adjustment for tenants occupying spaces that do not
face the roadway, the City could revise the standard to stipulate that wall signs must be on a building
face with a public entrance unless the entrance does not face the public right-of-way, in which case
the sign may be on a frontage that abuts the public right-of-way.
14 Section 15.40.470(A)(1).
Currently, wall signs may be a maximum of 100 square feet or 15 percent of the building face where the sign is attached,
whichever is less.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-29
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
21
Policy Questions
• Should the standards for sign placement be revised to allow wall signs on frontages that do
not have a public entrance when the entrance does not face the public street?
C. WINDOW SIGNS
Window signs convey information about a business and the type of goods or services it provides, and
they can also engage (or repel) pedestrians by the way they define the establishment’s personality.
San Luis Obispo’s current Regulations do not limit the number of individual window signs in non-
residential zones or specify where they can be located, aside from a provision stating that any display,
graphic, or text located 12 inches or less from the face of a window is considered to be a sign. The
Regulations restrict the maximum amount of window area that can be filled with signage to a maxi-
mum of 24 square feet or 15 percent of the window area, whichever is less.15
The guidelines provide additional information stating that window signs “should not obscure the
view into a store or place of business” and “should be limited to small graphics and text” that frame
a window or provide information.
15 Section 15.40.470.B.2.
Well -designed window signs can help to positively define the character of an establishment.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-30
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
22
The Sign Regulation update should establish additional
limits for permanent window signage that reflects the direc-
tion provided in the existing guidelines. To further prevent
out-of-scale signs, especially along pedestrian frontages, the
City should also consider revising the rules and allowances
for temporary signage. Requiring inexpensive permits for
all temporary signage, as proposed in another section of this
report, would improve the City’s ability to ensure that tem-
porary window signs comply with all applicable regula-
tions. The updated Regulations should establish a basic
area allowance, augmented by additional area for tempo-
rary window signs. In addition to the current allowance of
15 percent for window coverage for permanent signs, the
updated Regulations could allow an additional 10 percent
for temporary signs. The City may also want to consider re-
vising the requirements to prohibit displays that obscure
views into the commercial space.
D. AWNING SIGNS
Awning signs should be encouraged in places like San Luis Obispo, where they can shield patrons
and display merchandise from sun and glare, and also because they can add character to otherwise
undistinguished buildings. Although some awning and canopies are constructed as part of the build-
ing, because they may also be made of fabric, the regulations and guidelines should include provisions
to ensure that they are properly maintained and replaced if they become faded or tattered.
The current Regulations allow one awning sign per tenant space in all commercial zones subject to
compliance with specified requirements as well as ARC design review for new signs. The Regulations
stipulate that signs may not cover more than 25 percent of the “main area” of each awning (a term
that it not defined) or exceed 25 square feet in size. There is no restriction, however, on the total
number of separate awnings allowed on a building. The Signage Guidelines provide further detail,
stating that awning signs are only appropriate if there are no
other alternatives for wall, projecting, suspended, or other sign
types. Moreover, there is no standard or guideline that specifi-
cally restricts signs that hang from beneath an awning that also
bears a sign. As a result, some buildings have both awning and
wall signs and, as shown in the pictures below, this has created
a cluttered appearance on some buildings. Several stakeholders
also observed that because the design review of buildings does
not include consideration of where signage will be located, in
some cases awnings might be the only alternative available to a
business.
Displays, such as the one above, which are lo-
cated more than 12 inches from the face of
the window are not considered signs under the
current regulations.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-31
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
23
In addition to specifying that awnings and canopies must be 8 feet above the sidewalk, the Sign
Guidelines state that the sign lettering and/or logo should not comprise more than 30 percent of the
total exterior surface of an awning or canopy. Chapter 15.40 only includes standards for projecting
signs on historic structure or in historic districts, which require a minimum clearance of 10 feet for
vehicle-oriented projecting signs and 8 feet for pedestrian-oriented signs. Some municipalities re-
quire awnings and canopies to be at least nine or ten feet above the surface of the pavement or ground.
E. HANGING AND SUSPENDED SIGNS
Signs that hang from the underside of awnings, marquees, or covered walkways provide an additional
way for commercial tenants to identify their businesses. These signs are a positive addition to the
street scene, but, in some cases, may need to be more limited in size. The current Regulations allow
one hanging or suspended sign per tenant space. As a result, there may be several signs hanging one
from another or under an awning, so long as they maintain at least 8 feet of clearance above the right-
of-way or sidewalk.
Some stakeholder concerns could be addressed by revisions, such as the following:
• Limiting the number of suspended signs within a specific length of frontage;
• Allowing only one shingle sign to be suspended from a marquee, covered walkway or canopy,
in addition to other permitted signs;
• Requiring the sign area of the hanging or shingle sign to be debited against the allowable wall
sign area for the premises;
• Permitting a maximum size for hanging and shingle signs to not exceed four square feet for
a single face area;
• Increasing the required clearance for hanging signs to 9 feet; and
• Requiring a suspended sign to be directly adjacent to the business to which it refers.
Awning signs can be an attractive and appropriate, especially on older buildings, but can contribute to sign clutter if used in
combination with projecting or suspended signs.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-32
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
24
F. PROJECTING SIGNS
Projecting signs can be a helpful and attractive way to identify es-
tablishments in pedestrian-oriented districts, and they can also be
particularly attractive on older buildings. The current regulations
allow projecting signs in all commercial districts except for Service
Commercial (C-S) Public Facilities (PF), and Manufacturing (M)
zoning districts.
The current Regulations allow a variety of projecting signs. How-
ever, standards that limit the sign area to six square feet in Office
districts and 12 square feet in the Neighborhood Commercial,
Downtown Commercial, and Community Commercial districts
may preclude some signs that would be appropriate on older build-
ings without an exception. Moreover, the sign area limit would
likely prevent marquee signs, such as those on some hotels and en-
tertainment venues like the Fremont Theater. A marquee sign is a
sign that advertises an event, performance, or other message that is
displayed on a permanent roof-like structure or canopy, made of
rigid materials supported by and extending from the facade of a
building. Because of the typically larger size and/or visibility of
marquee signs they should, if allowed, require review by the ARC
and could be limited to historic buildings or districts.
Hanging and suspended signs can be a positive addition to the street scene and help pedestrians navigate to their intended
destination.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-33
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
25
Neither the standards nor the guidelines limit how far a projecting sign may extend from the building
wall. The guidelines advise that multiple projecting signs should not be installed within 10 feet of
one another on the same property and should be at least 10 feet from projecting signs on adjacent
properties. These limits could be expressed as standards that also include findings that provide ad-
ditional clarity regarding the circumstances that may warrant approval of an exception.
G. ROOF SIGNS
The current Regulations define a roof sign as one “where any part of the sign is on or over any portion
of any roof, eave, or parapet of a building or structure,” but include no other provisions that either
prohibit such signage or indicates where they are allowed. Many municipalities specifically prohibit
signage above the roofline, except for signs attached to a mansard roof. Because of their potential
impact on the skyline or interference with views of the hills surrounding San Luis Obispo, this may
be an appropriate prohibition, with specific exceptions for designated historic structures and build-
ings that contribute to designated historic districts. Other exceptions might include situations where
the building design does not provide sufficient wall area on a façade below the roof eave.
Policy Questions
• Should the updated regulations specifically prohibit roof signs except for historic structures
or buildings where the design does not offer sufficient display area below the roof eave when
such signage is architecturally integrated with the design of the roof?
The current Sign Regulations would likely prevent the installation of a marquee sign, such as the iconic sign on the Fremont
Theater.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-34
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
26
1.5 Freestanding Signs
San Luis Obispo’s current Regulations allow several different kinds of freestanding or ground signs
that can be generally divided into four types—pole, post, monument, and sandwich-board signs. The
regulations further distinguish these sign types by medium (e.g., electronic message centers), type of
use (e.g., shopping center, residential subdivision), and function (e.g., directory signs).
Some municipalities specifically prohibit signs above the roofline but make exceptions in certain instances, such as for historic
structures or where the building design does not provide sufficient area on a façade below the roof eave.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-35
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
27
Table 4: Non-Residential Freestanding Signs
Use Type Number Maximum Area and Height
Monument 1 per premises, per
street frontage
General: 24 sq. ft., 6 ft. in height.
C-R, C-D: 12 sq. ft., 4 ft. in height.
Free-Standing Post 2 per premises, per
street frontage
Pole 1/premises Max. height: 16 ft.
Max. area: 72 sq. ft.
Sandwich-Board 1/tenant space Max. area: 8 sq. ft.
Max height: 4 ft.
Residential Subdivision 1/frontage Max. area: 20 sq. ft.
Max. height: 4 ft.
Shopping Center Iden-
tification
1/frontage Max height: 16 ft., subject to ARC approval
Flags 1/premises Size of flag must be commensurate with the height and di-
ameter of the pole, per recommended industry standards.
Max height of pole is the same as the max. height for
structures, unless ARC determines that additional height
is necessary to achieve compatibility.
Directory 1/premises Max area: 12 sq. ft.
Individual letters may not exceed 6 inches in height.
Table 5: Residential Freestanding Signs
Type Maximum Height Maximum Area Other Requirements
Post 6 feet 20 sq. ft. One per premises in required street
yard; external illumination per Section
15.40.430
Directory Individual letters may not ex-
ceed 6 inches in height; no
height specified for entire sign
12 sq. ft. Illumination per Section 15.40.430
Residential
Subdivision
6 feet 20 sq. ft. Subject to ARC approval; no internal
illumination
A. MONUMENT SIGNS
Section 15.40.470(F) of the Regulations allows monument signs to be located in required street yards
in any commercial or public facility zoning district, subject to approval by the Community Develop-
ment Director. The current Regulations permit only one monument sign on each frontage for the
entire development site, regardless of the number of establishments or tenants located on the site.
Monument signs may have up to 24 square feet of sign area on the largest face. Monument signs are
restricted to six feet in height (or four feet if located in the Retail Commercial or Downtown Com-
mercial zoning districts); this restriction, in addition to the limitation on the number of permitted
Attachment 1
CHC 3-36
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
28
signs, may be problematic in some circumstances. The Signage Guidelines state that signs should be
designed so the style of the sign and its base “are consistent with the architecture of the buildings on
the site.” Because the height of freestanding signs includes the height of the structure such as a dec-
orative stone base, applicants may be inclined to skimp on the height of the structure in order to
maximize the area available to display the message.
An approach that may improve the utility of monument signs could include maintaining the current
height limits but allowing an increase in the height limit based on the distance to the public right-of-
way to which the sign is oriented. Another alternative would be to allow more than one monument
sign or increased sign area based on the size of the site and/or the length of the frontage. Instead of
requiring the ARC’s approval of an adjustment to allow such changes, the updated regulations could
establish standards that permit an increased number of monuments signs if the site area or frontage
exceeds a specified threshold. For example, the Regulations could allow two monument signs on each
frontage if the site is larger than six acres and has 200 or more lineal feet of frontage on a major street,
as defined in the code.
B. POLE AND PYLON SIGNS
The current regulations allow pole signs in the Commercial Retail (C-R), Commercial Service (C-S)
and Commercial Tourist (C-T) zones, subject to ARC approval. However, the Sign Regulations do
not define this type of signage. The Regulations also allow freestanding post signs, which are a type
of signage that some municipalities would classify as pole or pylon signs because they are supported
by two posts or poles. Moreover, the images of “pole” signs in Section 15.40.470(H) depict what is
typically defined as a “pylon” sign.
A common definition of “pole” sign is, “A freestanding sign supported by one or more exposed poles
that are permanently attached directly into or upon the ground.” Pylon signs are typically taller than
8 feet and supported by one or more structural elements other than poles, which are either solid
monumental structures (i.e. a pylon) or sheathed with materials similar to the design of the sign or
nearby buildings. Some municipalities that prohibit pole signs or allow them only on freeway-ori-
ented properties do allow the type of pylon and post signs that the code offers as an example.
The Sign Regulations permit on monument sign per frontage, regardless of the number of establishments or tenants located
on the site.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-37
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
29
In contrast to pole signs, freestanding post signs with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum
sign area of 20 feet are allowed in all districts including residential zones.
Policy Questions
• Should the City impose additional restrictions on pole signs to discourage their use?
• Where should pole signs be allowed?
• Are additional standards needed to improve the appearance of pole signs?
• Should pylon signs be encouraged as an alternative to pole signs?
• Other Freestanding Signs
There are a variety of other types of freestanding signs that the updated Regulations could include
such as directional signs, informational commercial signs, and entry gateways. Directional signs that
direct or guide pedestrian or vehicular traffic are appropriate especially on sites that have multiple
buildings or establishments. These and other incidental business signs that provide information such
as hours of operation or the location of restrooms could be exempted from permit requirements if
they do not include advertising for hire and adhere to standards for size, height, and placement. The
current Regulations include no apparent restraints on these types of signs. Therefore, unless a sign
program includes requirements for such signs, they can contribute to visual clutter and detract from
the overall appearance of the complexes where they appear.
Entry gateways are another type of freestanding sign that most codes, including San Luis Obispo’s,
do not specifically regulate. Entry gateways like the one on the Pixar campus in Emeryville are most
often constructed on large business and institutional campuses as well as some business complexes.
The above signs would, typically, be characterized as pylon rather than pole signs.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-38
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
30
They are distinguished from entry arches and signage such as the one on the right in San Diego that
are installed by a municipality or with its approval in the public right-of-way. Signs may have 3 foot
high letters extending across a substantial length of street frontage and as high as 20 feet above the
ground. Signs such as this would not conform to any of the previously discussed sign type standards.
Gateway signs could be approved with a Sign Program and design review approval by the ARC.
Standards need not be set as long as they do not exceed the aggregate sign area for the site. To provide
further direction, the Signage Guidelines could be revised to include this type of signage.
Policy Questions
• Should San Luis Obispo set standards for entry signs?
• Are there any other types of freestanding signs that the updated regulations should either
specifically allow or prohibit?
1.6 Exempt Signs
Article II specifically exempts a variety of sign types from the sign permit requirement. The require-
ments are unclear in some cases, however, especially with respect to temporary signs and non-com-
mercial speech not associated with an election. Although all temporary signs appear to be exempt
from permit requirements, the regulations do not make this exemption explicit except for real estate
and temporary window signs on commercial properties. Table 6 lists these and other types of signs
that Section 15.40.200 specifically exempts.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-39
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
31
Table 6: Exempt Signs
Sign Category Sign Types
Exempted Signs Address
Construction
Gasoline Price
Government
Miscellaneous Small
No Trespassing Signs
Traffic Safety Signs
Real Estate
Temporary Window
Transit
Utility
Vehicle
Policy Questions
• Should the City continue to exempt all temporary commercial signs from permit require-
ments? Are there any other exemptions in the existing regulations that need reconsideration?
• Are there any other types of signs that should be exempt from permit requirements?
1.7 Prohibited Signs
The Sign Regulations prohibit a variety of sign types.16 Some sign types are always prohibited, such
as billboards and backlit translucent awning signs. Others are allowed as temporary signs (e.g., ban-
ners), if approved by the Public Works Director (e.g., signs in the public right-of-way), or if posted
in an appropriate location (e.g., not on street trees or utility poles). The Sign Regulations update
provides an opportunity to determine whether some of the current prohibitions should be main-
tained or modified. It also provides an opportunity to consider whether there are additional sign
types that negatively impact the character of the city and should be prohibited.
Unless otherwise permitted by a specific provision, the following types of signs are prohibited under
the existing regulations:
• Attention Getting Devices
• Banner (except as temporary or intermittent signage)
• Backlit Translucent Awning
16 Section 15.40.300, Prohibited Signs.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-40
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
32
• Outdoor Advertising Displays and Off-Site
• Highly Reflective and Fluorescent
• Signs on Utility Poles or Traffic Control Devices
• Signs on Street Trees
• Signs that Block Ingress or Egress
• Signs in the Street Right of Way (without approval by Public Works Director)
• Simulated Traffic Signs
• Vehicle Signs
One type of signage that is not on San Luis Obispo’s list of prohibited signs and that some munici-
palities prohibit is “commercial mascots.” Commercial mascots are persons or animals, whether or
not costumed or decorated, that serve or function as a commercial advertising device. These can run
the gamut from “sign twirlers” and human sandwich boards to individuals dressed like chickens or
the Statue of Liberty. Instead of a complete ban on commercial mascots, a preferable approach may
be to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on them. In addition, it may be appro-
priate to clarify that in-person protestors and demonstrators expressing non-commercial messages
are not included within the definition of a commercial mascot.
Policy Questions
• Should commercial mascots be identified as a type of prohibited signage citywide or in spe-
cific districts?
1.8 Temporary Signs
San Luis Obispo’s current Sign Regulations define “temporary sign” as one that is “temporary in
nature and that is displayed for no more than 45 days in a row, or no more than 90 days within any
365 day period.”17 The Sign Regulations exempt some temporary signs from its permit requirements,
such as real estate signs and temporary window signs.18 The Regulations also provide that banners,
pennants, streamers, spinners, balloons, inflatable signs and other types of “attention getting devices”
may be approved as temporary signage in conjunction with a temporary use permit, special event
permit, or Architectural Review.19 The regulations also allow temporary banner signs with a sign
permit, pending installation of an approved permanent sign.20
Additional provisions for temporary signs appear elsewhere in the Municipal Code, including Chap-
ter 2.40 (Election Campaign Regulations) and Title 17 (Zoning). Section 17.08.010 states that the
17 Article X (Definitions).
18 Sections 15.40.200(H) & (I).
19 Article III (Prohibited Signs).
20 Id.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-41
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
33
zoning regulations for temporary uses are “not intended to serve the primary purpose of allowing
flexibility from sign regulations,” requires a sign permit for temporary signs for Christmas tree lots
and other seasonal produce sales, and establishes a maximum sign area of 32 square feet. The zoning
ordinance also allows temporary signs up to four square feet for garage and yard sales.
The current regulations impose the same size restrictions on election and real estate signs (three
square feet in residential zones and 10 square feet in commercial zones), but temporary window signs
on commercial properties are allowed to be larger (4 square feet of sign area or 10 percent of the each
window area, whichever is greater). Moreover, the regulations are silent on other types of temporary
signs with non-commercial messages, such as those announcing religious services (which were the
subject of the Reed decision) or views on non-campaign political issues.
In order to make the rules for temporary signs easier to understand, administer, and enforce and to
help ensure that the City’s regulations pass constitutional muster post-Reed, it would be preferable
to consolidate all the rules regarding temporary signage in one place in the Sign Regulations, with
cross-references to related provisions in other sections of the Municipal Code. Restrictions on tem-
porary signs should be based on the type of zone (i.e. residential or commercial). They should not
distinguish between commercial and non-commercial messages. No distinction should be made
based on the content of sign, such as by allowing larger signs for Christmas tree sales than for garage
sales when located in the same district. The updated Sign Regulations should require a permit for all
temporary signs; that being said, the City should consider establishing an expedited process for these
signs when they are not being approved in conjunction with a temporary use, such as a Christmas
tree lot.
A modest application fee would help the City cover the cost of processing and tracking applications.
The procedure could allow for self-certification, where the applicant signs a form acknowledging
receipt of requirements and agrees to comply with them, including by removing the signs within the
specified time period. Enforcement would be simplified if applicants were required to print the num-
ber of the sign permit on all temporary signs, which would allow code enforcement staff to easily
check the permit’s expiration date. These rules would allow the City to easily and accurately distin-
guish permitted temporary signs from those that are not.
A new consolidated set of regulations for temporary signs could include provisions that establish:
• Permits are required for temporary signs;
• The maximum number and size of temporary signs;
• What materials are permitted for temporary signs;
• The duration that temporary signs can be posted and if/how extensions are handled;
• Procedures for temporary sign review and approval
Policy Questions
• Should San Luis Obispo establish an expedited permit process for temporary signs?
• Should the City’s requirements for temporary signs be more prescriptive in terms of height,
location, and sign type?
Attachment 1
CHC 3-42
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
34
1.9 Murals
The current Sign Regulations establishes rules for murals,21 which suggests that they are a type of
signage. However, the Regulations do not include a definition of a mural to distinguish them from
signage. The Signage Guidelines attempt to make a distinction, providing, “Murals that do not con-
tain text or any specific commercial message can be considered public art.”22 The Guidelines also
provide that murals “should not contain text or any specific commercial message.” At the same time,
the Regulations establish rules for murals, including a requirement for ARC approval.
Another approach would be to establish a definition for the term “mural” and to specify that any
“mural” is public art and, therefore, not subject to the Sign Regulations. It may also be desirable to
specify that a “mural” does not include artwork that uses an image, logo, or trademark to promote a
commercial product or service; rather, this will be treated as a sign, and its area will counted toward
the total sign area of a project. Such a provision may not provide a sufficient basis for the City to
regulate so-called “lifestyle graphics,” which are wall or window signs that do not include a logo or
text, but incorporate an image that is intended to promote a business or commercial product. An
example would be a mural showing skiers, cyclists, or mountain climbers in the window of a sporting
goods store or a picture of fruits and vegetables that covers several windows of a supermarket. Life-
style images either portray the merchandise as it is used or “images of related items or models that
convey an image conducive to buying a product.”23
Policy Questions
• Should San Luis Obispo define establish requirements for regulating “lifestyle graphics” as a
type of signage?
1.10 Historic Signs
San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes regulations for designating and de-
molishing historic resources and enforcing the ordinance’s requirements. 24 It also assigns certain
responsibilities to the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Community Development Director for
administering the ordinance’s provisions. The ordinance includes criteria for designating historic
signs.25 It does not, however, include any requirements for the review and approval of either historic
signs or signs proposed on properties that have been designated as historic or are contributing prop-
erties in a historic district. The Sign Regulation update is an opportunity to clarify the requirements
21 Section 15.40.470(J).
22 Id. (emphasis added).
23 Patrick M. Dunne et al., Retailing, Southwestern Cengage Learning Inc., 7th Edition, 2011, p. 518. <http://pre-
view.tinyurl.com/hdkuyhj>
24 Chapter 14 of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code.
25 Section 14.01.055(C).
Attachment 1
CHC 3-43
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
35
that are applicable to signs on historic resources or within historic districts, with cross-reference to
applicable Municipal Code provisions, policies, and/or guidelines.
City Staff have expressed interest in establishing a process for allowing the City to approve the instal-
lation of plaques or other signage on designated historical properties and cultural sites. One way to
do this is to allow for the display for small, noncommercial signs, subject to specified size limits and
other standards, which could include plaques with historical information as well as small signs indi-
cating hours of operation or directing patrons to restrooms. The regulations could provide an ex-
emption for a limited number of signs with non-commercial messages that covers permanent historic
plaques but a regulation that restricts such signage to historic plaques would constitute regulation of
content. Such signage could be subject to approval by the Director or the Cultural Heritage Commit-
tee based a determination of compliance with standards regarding design and placement.
1.11 Administration and Enforcement
Chapter 15.40 has several different articles that establish requirements for administering and enforc-
ing the Sign Regulations:
15.40.480. Signs requiring architectural review.
15.40.485. Sign programs.
Article V. Sign Permits, Application and Processing Procedures
Article VI. Exceptions to Sign Standards
Article IX. Enforcement
The Sign Regulation update is an opportunity to clarify the requirements that are applicable to signs on landmarked buildings
or within historic districts.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-44
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
36
In addition to consolidating, reorganizing, and, in some cases, revising the existing provisions, the
revised Sign Regulations could include several new sections. These would be intended to better ex-
plain some of the existing requirements as well as respond to concerns that have been raised about
the inflexibility of the existing Regulations and how they are enforced. The proposed new and revised
sections are discussed in further detail in the following sections of this report.
1.12 Exceptions to Sign Regulations
The existing Sign Regulations allow the City to approve exceptions when warranted due to unusual
site conditions or other factors, subject to approval by the ARC.26 Although several stakeholders rec-
ognized the importance of flexibility, most also expressed concerns about the present process, in-
cluding the requirement for ARC approval and what they perceive as a lack of consistency in deci-
sions.
Under the Regulations, granting an exception requires that least one of the following findings be
made:
• There are exceptional or unusual circumstances applying to the property involved which do
not apply generally to properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, such as, but not limited
to: (1) the presence of a legal, nonconforming use; (2) visual obstructions; (3) unusual build-
ing location on-site; or (4) unusual building design, architectural style, or historic signifi-
cance.
• The sign for which an exception is requested is a nonconforming sign that acts as a neigh-
borhood landmark or focal point while not disrupting views of prominent community land-
scape features. When granting an exception, the ARC or the Director shall require that as
many nonconforming elements of the sign as possible be eliminated while allowing its basic
form and character to remain.
• The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the sign regulations and will not
constitute a grant of special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with limitations applied to
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
• The sign exception is for superior design, will not result in visual clutter and is consistent
with the intent and purpose of these sign regulations.27
Although the exception process is intended to provide a type of relief that is an alternative to the
variance process established in the zoning regulations, these findings are very similar to those re-
quired to approve a variance. In order for a variance to be approved, each of the following findings
must be made:
26 Section 15.40.600.
27 Section 15.40.610.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-45
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
37
• That there are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which
do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning;
• That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
• That the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.28
The Sign Regulation update is a potential opportunity to reduce the number of applications that re-
quire exceptions. For instance, revising the provisions that require signs to be on the same frontage
as the entrance could reduce the number of applications that need exceptions. Establishing separate
requirements for signs on designated historic resources or contributing properties in designated dis-
tricts could also eliminate the need for approving adjustments pursuant to the exception process.
Other changes the City may want to consider would be to establish a dimensional limit for exceptions
(e.g., not exceeding the area or height standards by more than 10 percent) and to provide further
detail concerning what constitutes a visual obstruction, unusual building design, or unusual archi-
tectural style. Augmenting the required findings in this way may make it unnecessary to have a find-
ing that the exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or entitlement.
1.13 Sign Programs
The current Regulations are unclear about procedures for review and approval of sign programs or
their intended purpose. Sign programs are often an effective way to ensure coordinated signage com-
patible with architectural design in complexes with multiple tenants or structures. The Regulations
state that the ARC “may approve” a sign program for a development or property. The Regulations
also grant broad discretion to the ARC to allow sign programs to supersede the Sign Regulations’
prohibitions as well as its standards. There should be triggers for projects that must submit signage
plans, which will help decision makers understand the overall intent for signage and ensure that sign-
age is designed to be compatible with the development and surrounding community. Sign programs
can also speed up the permit process and reduce time and costs.
The Regulations should explain how approved sign programs are used to review signs that are sub-
mitted and establish rules for modification of approved sign programs. In most cases, once a sign
program is approved, administration can be an “over-the-counter” process. When future tenants are
unknown, generic signs can be approved, with details evaluated once tenants are signed up. Some
municipalities provide for the approval of sign programs that allow some signs within a development
to exceed otherwise applicable requirements as long as the program does not allow signs that the
regulations specifically prohibit. Approval of a sign program should require review for consistency
with applicable sign guidelines and for compliance with any criteria the regulations establish for
granting approval.
The updated Regulations could specify which standards can be modified and whether the aggregate
limit on total sign area can be adjusted at all. One approach may be to require sign programs to vary
28 Section 17.60.040.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-46
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
38
dimension standards by sign type, up to 25 percent, and to allow transfers of sign allowances between
sign types, but not allow any increase in the aggregate sign area. Alternatively, the City could allow
for adjustments of up to, say, 10 or 25 percent of total sign area upon making certain findings.
The Sign Regulations could also allow a sign program to be substituted for sign-by-sign approval in
any development with multiple tenants or buildings. Requiring sign programs in such circumstances
might simplify the signage approval process for business owners and could also help to achieve more
harmonious design.
Policy Questions
• Should San Luis Obispo establish additional requirements for Sign Programs applicable to
all multi-tenant non-residential projects? Should they be required or optional? Should Sign
Programs be required or allowed as an option for any building or development with multiple
tenants or buildings?
• How much flexibility should be provided through a Sign Program? For example, changes in
dimensional standards and transfers of sign area from one sign type to another, but no in-
crease in the overall sign area “budget”?
1.14 Design Review Guidelines
San Luis Obispo has adopted Signage Guidelines that are embedded in Section 15.40.470 and are,
presumably, intended to provide additional information about the City’s signage preferences. In
contrast to prescriptive standards, guidelines are typically advisory and applied as part of a discre-
tionary review process. Chapter 15.40 does not, however, explain how the City uses the guidelines,
aside from a statement that the Community Development Director will forward to the ARC any sign
or visual device that does not comply with the guidelines. These guidelines do not provide the same
level of detail as other design guidelines that San Luis Obispo has adopted or sign guidelines adopted
by other municipalities.
The Community Design Guidelines, which the City adopted in June 2010, provide guidance on spe-
cific design considerations to help designers, business owners, and developers to understand the
City’s expectations with respect to signs. The statement of intent explains that:
The City encourages signs that effectively identify individual business establishments and
support public safety and convenience by providing good directions. The design and con-
tent of signs are important in shaping the image of the city in the minds of visitors and
residents, and how they feel about the city, and themselves. While in most cases the City
cannot regulate the content of signs, and the ARC will not consider sign content in its
deliberations, businesses are encouraged to think about how the images and words on
signs will affect not only their business interests, but also how they will affect and relate
to the attitudes and values of families and children within the community.29
29 Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.6 p. 78.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-47
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
39
An alternative to the current approach would be to consolidate and augment the provisions for signs
in the Community Design Guidelines with the Signage Guidelines, which are now incorporated in
the text of Chapter 15.40. Expanding the sign guidelines in this manner would allow incorporation
of additional illustrative graphics and photographs as well as guidelines that suggest appropriate ap-
proaches for different types of buildings.
Both the updated Regulations and the guidelines should be revised to clarify that the guidelines are
intended to provide examples of techniques and approaches that applicants can use to meet City
expectations, but are not intended to illustrate all approaches that may be appropriate on a specific
site. If the updated Regulations include a statement of principles for signage, the revised guidelines
could also include these. Moreover, the updated Regulations need to make clear that the City may
not use its discretionary authority to impose restrictions on the height of letters, the number of busi-
ness names, and other aspects of content. Such conditions may constitute impermissible regulation
of message content in conflict with Constitutional principles.
Policy Questions
• Should the Signage Guidelines that are now incorporated in Chapter 15.40 be consolidated
with the provisions regarding signs in the Community Design Guidelines and expanded to
provide additional examples, graphics, and other material to assist applicants?
• Should the Sign Regulations include more detail about the role of the guidelines and how
they will be used in the review process?
1.15 Nonconforming Signs
Under the current provisions for nonconforming signs in Article VIII, signs that were legally estab-
lished and continuously maintained before March 12, 1983 are subject to abatement. This require-
ment seem inconsistent with the provisions for approving exceptions, which specify that a sign’s
nonconforming status is a basis for granting an exception to the existing requirements. State law
distinguishes nonconforming billboards (i.e. signs with display space for hire) from on-premises
signage, which is one reason why many jurisdictions have eliminated provisions for amortizing on-
premise signage. Under California Business & Professions Code 5490 et seq., if a municipality enacts
Sign Regulations that are more restrictive and require amortization, it must conduct an inventory of
all signs to determine which will be subject to amortization, allow 15 years for the owner to recoup
the investment in the sign, or pay compensation based on a 15-year straight line depreciation sched-
ule.
If the City decides to retain the amortization provisions, it is probably advisable to cross-reference
the requirements in the Business and Professions Code rather than incorporating an amortization
schedule such as the one in existing Section 15.40.820. Business and Professions Code Section 5495
defines “fair and just compensation” as “compensation which is equal to 1/15 of the duplication cost
of construction of the display being removed multiplied by the number of years of useful life remain-
ing for the sign….” Another approach would be to retain and modify the requirements to exempt
nonconforming signs if the sign area does not exceed the maximum permitted by more than a spec-
ified percentage (e.g., 50 percent).
Attachment 1
CHC 3-48
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
40
Instead of requiring amortization of billboards, an approach that some municipalities have chosen is
to establish provisions for relocating signage pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section
5412. The statute was enacted to enable jurisdictions to implement their policies and regulations
“without expenditure of public funds while allowing the continued maintenance of private invest-
ment and a medium of public communication.”
The updated Regulations could also include provisions that provide more specific direction about
the type of alterations that can be made to nonconforming signs, which would simplify the process
for granting exceptions. The regulations should also provide for routine maintenance and repairs
that do not expand any nonconforming feature. Maintenance requirements for conforming signs
should be included among the general requirements for all types of signs.
1.16 Rules for Measurement
Article IV (Sign Standards) as well as Article X (Definitions) establish some rules for calculating the
area of signs and making other measurements necessary to determine whether a sign conforms to
standards. To make the Sign Regulations easier to use, the updated Regulations should include a
consolidated set of Rules for Measurement with explanatory graphics in an article entitled General
Provisions for All Sign Types. Separate sections should set forth clear rules for calculating the area of
single-faced, multi-faced, and three-dimensional signs. The next page includes some examples of
graphics that can be used to illustrate the rules.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-49
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
41
Figure 1: Graphic Example: Measurement of Sign Area
Attachment 1
CHC 3-50
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
42
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-51
43
Appendix: Sign Type Definitions
This is a preliminary list of definitions that incorporate and, in some instances, propose revisions to
definitions in Article X of the existing Sign Regulations. The proposed revisions are, for the most
part, intended to clarify the meaning of terms used Chapter 15.40 but also to remove or revise pro-
visions that are expressed as standards or requirements and include them in the appropriate section
of the regulations. This part of the regulations should include graphics where necessary to clarify
terms such as Channel Letter Sign and Feather Banner that may be unfamiliar to some users. The
following text uses underlining and strike out to show substantive changes from the current regula-
tions.
The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings when used in this Chapter. In
the event of a conflict between the definitions in this section and in Article TBD, Definitions, of the
Zoning Ordinance, the terms in this section shall apply.
A-frame Sign. A portable upright, rigid, self-supporting frame sign in the form of a triangle or letter
“A”. Other variations of such signage may also be in the shape of the letter T (inverted) or the letter
H. Also called Sandwich-Board Sign.
FIGURE TBD: A-FRAME SIGN
Architectural review. refers to The architectural review process authorized by Municipal Code Sec-
tion 2.48.090.
ARC or Architectural Review Commission (ARC). means The Commission with the jurisdiction to
perform architectural review, per Chapter 2.48 of the municipal code. When these sign regulations
refer specifically to the ARC or Architectural Review Commission, review by the Commission is re-
quired.
Area of Signs (Sign Area). The area within the perimeter of one or two contiguous or overlapping
rectangles of a size sufficient to enclose the outer limits of any writing, representation, emblem, logo,
figure or character. Sign Area does not include supporting structures such as sign bases and columns
that contain no lettering or graphics except for addresses or required tags. (See Section TBD, Calcu-
lation of Sign Area, for specific rules for measuring the area of different sign types.)
Attention-getting sign means any sign with moving parts, flashing lights, and/or neon colors, or signs
incorporating pennants, streamers, large helium balloons or any similar visual device used for the
purpose of drawing attention.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-52
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
44
Banner sign. means A flexible sign including Feather Banners and Pennants of lightweight fabric or
similar material typically supported at two or more points and hung on a building or otherwise sus-
pended down or across its face, or across a public right-of-way. This definition does not include Flags
as defined by this Article.
Billboard. A sign used for the purpose of general advertising for hire when some or all of the display
area is used to display the messages of advertisers or sponsors other than the owner or an occupant
of the property on whose property where the sign is located. Such signs are sometimes called Off-
Premises Signs or Outdoor Advertising.
Blade Sign. A double-sided sign oriented perpendicular to the building wall on which it is mounted.
(See Projecting Sign)
Building face.The whole of a building visible in an elevation view, excluding sloped roof surfaces.
Building Frontage. As used in this Chapter, the linear measurement of exterior walls enclosing inte-
rior spaces which are oriented to and most nearly parallel to public streets, public alleys, parking lots,
malls or freeways.
Cabinet Sign. An internally illuminated sign consisting of frame and face(s), with a continuous trans-
lucent message panel; also referred to as a panel sign.
FIGURE TBD: CABINET SIGN
Changeable Copy Sign. A sign displaying a message that is changed by means of moveable letters,
slats, lights, light emitting diodes, or moveable background material. “Digital signs,” “dynamic signs,”
Electronic Message Centers and CEVMS (changeable electronic variable message signs) are all within
this definition.
Channel Letters. Three-dimensional individual letters or figures typically made of formed metal,
usually with an acrylic face, with an open back or front, illuminated or non-illuminated, that are
affixed to a building or to a freestanding sign structure by sliding the letters into channels.
FIGURE TBD: CHANNEL LETTERS
Channel Letter Sign. A sign with multiple components, each built in the shape of an individual di-
mensional letter or symbol, each of which may be independently illuminated, with a separate trans-
lucent panel over the letter source for each element.
Commercial Speech or Commercial Message. An image on a sign that concerns primarily the eco-
nomic interests of the message sponsor or the viewing audience, or both, or that proposes a commer-
cial transaction.
Commercial zone. All nonresidential zones, regardless of how the property is actually used.
Copy. The visually communicative elements mounted on a sign. Also called sign copy.
Digital Display. A display method utilizing LED (light emitting diode), LCD (liquid crystal display),
plasma display, projected images, or any functionally equivalent technology, and which is capable of
Attachment 1
CHC 3-53
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
45
automated, remote or computer control to change the image, either in a “slide show” manner (series
of still images), or full motion animation, or any combination of them.
Directory Sign. A freestanding or wall sign that identifies all businesses and other establishments
located within a commercial or industrial complex or an institutional establishment.
Electronic Message Center (Electronic Message Display). A sign that uses digital display to present
variable messages displays by projecting an electronically controlled pattern and which can be pro-
grammed to periodically change the message display. See Digital Display.
FIGURE TBD: ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER SIGN
Establishment. Any legally established use of land involving buildings or structures subject to the
Building Code but not including permanent residential occupancy uses or residential care facilities.
Feather Banner. A type of vertical banner made of flexible materials, (e.g., cloth, paper, or plastic),
the longer dimension of which is typically attached to a pole or rod that is driven into the ground or
supported by an individual stand. Also called a “swooper” or “teardrop” banner. Also known as quill
signs or quill banners.
FIGURE TBD: FEATHER BANNER
Flag. A piece of fabric or other flexible material, usually rectangular, of distinctive design, used as a
symbol, which is capable of movement, or fluttering in moving air or wind and which displays a non-
commercial message.
Freestanding Sign. A sign supported by structures or supports that are placed on, or anchored in, the
ground and which are structurally independent from any building including “monument signs”,
“pole signs”, “pylon signs” and “ground signs.” (Also called Ground Signs).
Fuel Pricing Sign. A sign that indicates, and is limited to, the brand or trade name, method of sale,
grade designation and price per gallon of gasoline or other motor vehicle fuel offered for sale on the
business premises, and such other information as may be required by county ordinance or state law,
such as California Business and Professions Code section 13530 et seq.
Frontage.The horizontal distance along a lot line adjacent to a public street, or the side of a lot adja-
cent to a public street. (See Building Frontage).
Attachment 1
CHC 3-54
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
46
General Advertising for Hire. The enterprise of advertising or promoting other businesses, establish-
ments or causes using methods of advertising, typically for a fee or other consideration, in contrast
to self-promotion or on-site advertising.
Hanging Sign. See Shingle Sign.
Height of a sign.The vertical distance from average grade (ground level) immediately below the sign
to the top of the sign including the support structure and any projecting design elements.
Illegal sign. Any sign that does not meet the requirements of this code Chapter and which has not
received legal, nonconforming status did not comply with applicable legal requirements at the time
it was established.
Illuminated Sign. A sign that is illuminated with an artificial source of light incorporated internally
or externally. Also called a Lighted Sign.
Major street frontage.Any arterial road shown in the city’s circulation element.
Mansard Sign. A sign attached below the deck line or principal roofline of a mansard roof or similar
roof-like façade.
FIGURE TBD: MANSARD SIGN
Marquee. is A building element constructed of rigid materials supported by and extending from the
façade of a building that is part of a permanent entryway or entry canopy. and traditionally associated
with theaters. A marquee sometimes includes a projecting vertical or blade sign, which may extend
above the cornice line of a building consistent with the provisions of this Chapter. The design and
allowable sign area for a marquee are determined by the ARC during their review of the proposed
building and/or marquee.
FIGURE TBD: MARQEE SIGN
Monument Sign. A low-profile freestanding sign erected upon or supported solely by a planter, ped-
estal base, or similar ground structure approximately the same width as the sign and which is de-
signed to incorporate the architectural theme and building material of the building on the premises.
Internal supports, poles or pylons, if any, are enclosed by decorative covers or otherwise not exposed
to view.
Mural. A work of graphic art on an exterior building wall that may or may not contain a commercial
logo or trademark but does not serve to advertise or promote any business, product, activity, service,
interest, or entertainment and is not general advertising for hire.
Non-Commercial Message. A message or image on a sign that directs public attention to or advo-
cates an idea or issue of public interest or concern but is not advertising for hire and or does not
promote any business, product, activity, service, interest, or entertainment.
Nonconforming sign.A sign, which was erected legally, but which does not now comply with these
subsequently enacted sign regulations.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-55
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
47
Nonresidential zone is any zone other than the R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 zone, including the Mixed-Use
Overlay Zone, as designated by Title 17, Zoning, of the Municipal Code, regardless of how the prop-
erty is actually used.
Outdoor advertising display is a sign, such as a billboard, that advertises a product or display. Off-
Premises Sign. A sign that advertises commercial products, accommodations, services or activities
not provided in or on the property or premises upon which it is located. The on-site/off-site distinc-
tion does not apply to non-commercial messages. (See Billboard)
Pennant. A device made of flexible materials, (e.g., cloth, paper, or plastic) that is typically triangular
or swallow-tail in shape, may or may not contain copy, and which is installed for the purpose of
attracting attention. Does not include pennants used for watercraft signaling purposes.
Permanent Sign. “Permanent sign” means a sign that is solidly attached to a building, structure, or
the ground by means of mounting brackets, bolts, welds, or other combination of attachment meth-
ods, thereby rendering the sign non-moveable or difficult to reposition without the use of machinery,
cutting devices, or mechanical devices. Contrast: temporary sign.
Pole Sign. A freestanding sign that is supported by one or more exposed poles that are permanently
attached directly into or upon the ground.
Post Sign. A low-profile free-standing sign supported by posts that has a single sign face and is gen-
erally oriented parallel to the public right-of-way.
Premises. means A lot or series of lots under common ownership and/or developed together as a
single development site, regardless of how many uses occupy the site.
Projecting Sign. A building wall sign, the surface of which is not parallel to the face of the supporting
wall and which is supported wholly by the wall. See Blade Sign.
Public entrance. One or more places of entry to an establishment or premises that are accessible to
the general public.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-56
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
48
Pylon Sign. A freestanding sign that is supported and in direct contact with the ground or one or
more solid, monumental structures or pylons and which typically has a sign face with a vertical di-
mension that is greater than its horizontal dimension.
FIGURE TBD: PYLON SIGN
Real Estate Sign. A temporary sign posted on any property that is being actively marketed for sale or
for lease.
Right-of-way. See Municipal Code Section 16.26.330.
Roof sign. Any sign where any part of the sign is on or over supported by or attached to or projecting
through the roof of a building or structure, or projecting above the eave line or parapet wall of the
building or structure. Any portion of any roof, eave, or parapet of a building or structure. Roof sign
does not include a sign attached to a mansard roof pursuant to the definitions of building sign and
mansard roof or a vertical sign as defined in this Section.
Sandwich-board Sign. See A-Frame sign.
Shingle Sign. A sign that hangs from a canopy or awning or from the roof of an arcade or passageway.
(See Under-Canopy Sign.)
Sign. Any visual device or representation designed or used for the purpose of communicating a mes-
sage or identifying or attracting attention to a premises, product, service, person, organization, busi-
ness or event, with or without the use of words.
Sign Area. or area of sign is the number of square feet of the smallest rectangle within which an
individual sign face can be enclosed. See Area of Signs.
Sign face. is The visible portion of the sign, including all characters, symbols, and structural or non-
structural trim or background (e.g., cabinet frame or painted border), but not including the base of
a pole sign, monument sign, or free standing sign.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-57
Issues and Options
Draft for Public Review—June 2016
49
Storefront. A distinct architectural feature that is immediately accessible from a public sidewalk and
consisting of window displays and entry doors to one or more uses.
Street right-of-way as used in this chapter is any road or other public place, including but not limited
to a highway, alley, street, avenue, place, sidewalk, parkway (i.e., planted or landscaped area between
a curb and the edge of a sidewalk), path, walk, park, plaza, boulevard, right-of-way or any other public
place in the city whether or not currently improved.
Temporary sign. A sign or advertising display constructed of fabric, cardboard, plywood or other
light material, with or without a frame that is temporary in nature and that is designed or intended
to be displayed for no more than forty-five days in a row, or no more than ninety days within any
three-hundred-sixty-five-day period a short period of time.
Tenant’s building face. That portion of the building face enclosing the area of the building occupied
by the tenant. In multi-tenant buildings with interior tenant spaces, each tenant’s building face shall
be the proportionate share of the building face enclosing the area occupied by all tenants.
Under-Canopy or Under-Marquee Sign. See Shingle Sign.
V sign. is A sign consisting of with two, essentially equal, sign faces positioned at an angle less than
one hundred eighty degrees rather than parallel to each other.
Vehicle Sign. A sign mounted, attached, affixed or painted on a vehicle, trailer or similar conveyance
parked in a position and location for the primary purpose of promoting any business, product, ac-
tivity, service, interest or entertainment.
Visibility Triangle. A generally triangular area at an intersection that defines a zone necessary for a
motor vehicle driver, bicyclist, or pedestrian to have a clear view of oncoming cross-street motor
vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian traffic or traffic control devices including, but not limited to, intersec-
tions of streets, alleys, driveways.
Window display. A sign with a single face of copy or an arrangement of merchandise, including
graphics and text that is painted or installed on a glass window or door or displayed within 12 inches
in a building window. Provided the display is located more than twelve inches back from the inside
of the window, the display is not considered a sign. (Ord. 1484 ß 13, 2005; Ord. 1455 ß 2 (part),
2004) .
Attachment 1
CHC 3-58
City of San Luis Obispo
Sign Regulations Update
50
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
CHC 3-59
Attachment 1
CHC 3-60
DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415 956 4300 415 956 7315
Attachment 1
CHC 3-61
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, May 23, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, May
23rd, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp (arrived 5:38),
Leah Walthert, and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: Committee Member Craig Kincaid & Vice Chair Thom Brajkovich
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Planning Technician Kyle van Leeuwen, and
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 1034 Church Street. ARCH-2947-2016; Construction of two dwellings behind an
existing residence that is a Contributing List Historic Resource in the Railroad Historic
District, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; R-3-H zone; Tom
Garris, applicant.
Chair Hill announced she had received two pieces of Agenda Correspondence, one from a
neighbor of the project and the other from project architect.
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report and passed material board around to
Committee Members.
Committee Member Larrabee inquired about the proximity between original and new
buildings and the distance of setbacks between them and the buildings on Leff Street.
Chair Hill inquired whether there were any exceptions required for the project.
Public Comments
Applicant Representative and Architect, Louisa Smith, provided a presentation and
responded to perspective and line-of-sight questions from the Committee.
Committee Member Papp discussed his concerns over the compatibility of additional units at
the rear of lots in Historic Districts.
Chair Hill commented that the Committee needs to apply regulations regarding in-fill
projects as they exist currently, but suggested that if the Committee does not believe that
current guidelines are adequate that revisions should be explored.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER WALTHERT, to recommend that the Community Development
Director find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, with the
following additional conditions:
1. Windows used in the project shall be of high-quality materials differing from the
proposed, unacceptable vinyl; 2.) Window details shall be included in construction plans
and include manufacturer “cut sheets” or physical samples sufficient to enable evaluation
of compliance with this Condition and to satisfaction of Community Development
Director; and 3.) The Landscape Plan submitted with plans for construction permits shall
include landscaping for the entire site, including the front yard area around the existing
residence.
Motion passed 4:1:0:2 on the following vote:
AYES: Larrabee, Walthert, Baer, Hill
NOES: Papp
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kincaid, Brajkovich
2. 1404 Broad Street. ARCH-3036-2016; Architectural review of exterior building façade
modifications on a non-historic commercial building within the Old Town Historic
District, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; O-H zone, Covelop
Holdings, LLC, applicant.
Planning Technician van Leeuwen provided the Staff Report.
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Meeting of May 23, 2016 Page 2
Public Comments
In response to Committee questions, Applicant Representative Joel Snyder, Ten Over Studios,
indicated that Applicant wished to provide a facelift for the plain and flawed façade after
recently moving a new tenant into the building, adding a level of architectural detail to give it
a street presence and make it more functional. This better functionality includes better sun
protection for the southeastern facing windows of the building.
Committee Member Papp commended the clear explanation of the project. Committee
Members Baer and Larrabee voiced that the design will upgrade the prominent street corner.
Chair Hill requested assurances that the parapet would be tall enough to fully screen
equipment.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER BAER, to approve plans to make façade improvements to the exterior of the
building at 1404 & 1406 Broad Street and 719 Pismo Street, Old Town Historic District, O-H
Zone. Motion passed 5:0:0:2 on the following vote:
AYES: Papp, Baer, Larrabee, Walthert, Hill
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kincaid, Brajkovich
Agenda Forecast:
Senior Planner Leveille provided the Agenda Forecast.
June 6th: Special Meeting on Long-Bonetti Ranch as modified from its original proposal
June 27th: New proposals for modification on The Creamery project @ 570 Higuera; 71
Palomar wherein Applicant responded to CHC direction; Master List Kimball House @690 Islay
for Mills Act
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2016
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Meeting of May 23, 2016 Page 3
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 6, 2016
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Shannon Larrabee, James Papp (arrived 5:35), Sandy Baer,
Craig Kincaid, Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER PAPP, CARRIED 7-0, to approve the Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee
meeting of March 28, 2016.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 120 Tank Farm Road. ARCH 1219-2015; Cultural Heritage Committee review of a
project located at the Long Bonetti Ranch property including modifications and
rebuilding of historic structures and the addition of four new buildings (including four
residential units) located among the existing historic structures, totaling 42,000 square
feet, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; M-SP zone;
PB Companies, applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
Senior Planner Leveille requested the CHC allow a deviation from the normal procedure to allow
the applicant team an opportunity to provide a presentation and overview of the project prior to
the staff analysis. Chair Hill concurred that the additional information from the applicant team
would be helpful.
Associate Planner, Marcus Carloni, provided a brief overview of the background and prior
approvals on the site.
Project applicant, John Belsher, provided a detailed project description and background on the
project. He outlined previous approvals and described the concept of creating a public market on
the site.
Jim Dummitt, applicant team, stated he worked on the early conceptual plans for the project. He
discussed his discovery of the historical significance of the site and his desire to have a project
that reflects its cultural significance. He stated the public market concept is a sustainable
economic use for the site.
Mark Woolpert, applicant team, stated he would be running the project as the master lease
holder. He stated the project would be a good addition to the community and fill a need for
locally sourced foods. He provided examples from other Cities where public markets have been
in existence for generations. John Belsher and Mark Woolpert described the project concepts
along with a “fly through” video showing views of the project.
Michael Hibna, applicant team, stated he was the Architectural Historian that authored the LSA
consultants historical evaluation. He provided an overview of the historical significance of the
property and how the project was consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards.
Lief McKay, applicant team, and RRM Design Group, Landscape Architect, provided an
overview of the landscape design and site planning.
Tyler Thomas, applicant team, and Isaman Design Group Architect, described the project
architecture intent to have buildings reflective of their purpose.
Jon Belsher provided examples of other larger buildings in the area and stated the main public
market building is substantially smaller than most other commercial buildings.
Marcus Carloni, staff planner, provided an analysis of various components of the project and
raised issues for Committee member discussion.
The Committee discussed the various components of the project and went through each of the
discussion items raised in the staff report.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Michelle Gibbs, Orcutt, CA stated she felt the project maintains integrity of the setting and
supported the project.
Corin Koren, San Luis Obispo, noted her support for the project.
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 2
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, discussed how much the project has improved since when he
was on the CHC and reviewed a previous proposal. He noted he did not like the proposed slate
roof on the farmhouse and that the awning next to the water tower feels cramped. He voiced
overall support for the project.
Courtney Mellblom, Atasacadero CA, noted that as an organic farmer she would like to see the
project go forward and that the project supports agriculture and its importance to the community.
---End of Public Comment---
The CHC discussed components of the project and went through each of the discussion items
raised by staff in the staff report and presentation including the repositioning of buildings,
awning proximity to the water tower, massing of the market building, and compatibility of
architectural features to the historic buildings.
ACTION: ON A MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Committee adopted a resolution finding the project
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guideline. The
motion passed 7-0 on the following consensus vote with the following recommended conditions:
1. The slate roofing material shall be replaced with a more historically appropriate material
such as wood shingle, subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission.
2. Historic plaques/displays shall be placed among the site providing historical background of
the property and evolution of the project including identification of reconstructed buildings.
The historical site plan should be included in the historic plaques.
3. The ARC shall consider the Building 5 awning element and its relationship (i.e. proximity)
to the water tower.
4. The railings associated with the Building 6 balconies shall be enclosed to screen materials
associated with the residential units.
5. The signage plan does not need to return to the CHC for review and may be approved as
part of a sign program reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The signage for
the site shall include signage that is compatible with the historic ranch including non-
illuminated, externally illuminated, halo illuminated, and neon signage.
Motion passed 7-0 on the following vote:
AYES: Hill, Baer, Kincaid, Walthert, Larrabee, Brajkovich, Papp
NOES:
ABSENT:
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 3
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Agenda Forecast:
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast for the June 27, 2016 meeting: Mills Act
application for 690 Islay Street, continued review of 71 Palomar, and review of modifications to
the Historic Creamery at 570 Higuera Street.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 4