HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/1988, 6 - 1988 SIGN PROGRAM STATUS REPORT. AGENDA
LSH I E OCT 4 ee ITEM # (�J
fl���ie ►►�����IIIII��'�������� NI city osAn luis oBispo
maims990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
September 20, 1988
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Terry Sanville, Supervising Principal Planner
SUBJECT: 1988 Sign Program Status Report.
In August, 1988 the City Council denied an appeal by the owners of Rexall Drug Store.
The owners wanted to retain their large sign at the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets and
had asked the ARC for an exception to the sign regulations. The ARC had denied that
request.
The council's action on the appeal focused public attention on the city's sign abatement
program that has been active since 1978. The council has also received a request to
consider changing the sign regulations to allow for the continued use of non-conforming
signs (reference materials submitted by Ron Bearce, et al.).
We anticipate that sign enforcement activities will increase in the future because all
non-conforming signs are now beyond the amortization dates established by the
regulations. The attached report describes the progress that has been made since 1977 in
abating non-conforming signs and summarizes the current situation.
If after reviewing the attached report, council members feel that it is appropriate and
equitable to initiate program changes, you should ask staff to return with information
about alternatives. A short list of alternatives include:
1. Continue with existing abatement program
2. Establish broader ARC "exception" criteria
3. Extend amortization dates
4. Exempt signs from abatement until use or property owner changes
5. Suspend enforcememt for a fixed period of time
6. Change basic sign standards (eg. number, size, heights)
7. Change standards for specific areas (eg. tourist areas)
Some of these alternatives may be combined. The staff can expand the attached report to
include additional information that council members feels is needed to evaluate this
issue.
TS:ts
Attached
SIGN PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
INTRODUCTION
In 1977, the city revised its sign regulations to establish new standards for all signs
in San Luis Obispo. Since then, the Community Development Department has been
administering the sign regulations -- issuing 2,058 permits for conforming signs, abating
illegal signs and banners, and working with owners to remove signs that do not meet city
standards.
Through the cooperation of business people and sponsors of development projects, we
estimate that close to 90 percent of all signs in San Luis Obispo now conform to adopted
standards. However, administering the sign regulations is an ongoing process. There are
approximately 167 sites with non-conforming signs that should be removed or sign permits
issued. Also, illegal signs and banners are the department's most frequent type of
"enforcement" item.
This report summarizes the progress that has been made since 1977 and outlines current
sign enforcement activities.
BACKGROUND
1. 1977 Revisions
In 1975, the City Council asked the planning staff to prepare an ordinance that updated
the sign regulations. A survey of all signs in San Luis Obispo was completed in 1976.
Draft regulations were prepared and distributed to sign users, sign makers, business
groups, the Planning Commission and the ARC. In the fall of 1976 a committee was formed,
in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce, to review the draft regulations.
By the fall of 1977, the Planning Commission, ARC, and sign committee had forwarded
recommendations to the city council. In August, 1977, the City Council gave final
approval to new sign regulations. The regulations went into effect on September 3, 1977.
The department hired Candace Havens as Sign Enforcement Technician and the sign abatement
program began in June 1978.
2. 1980 Amendment
In March 1979, the department received a request to amend the sign regulations from by a
group called "Businesses for Fair Signing.' This group was concerned about the impact
of the new ordinance on signs for tourist uses along north Monterey Street.
The City Council asked the original sign committee to review the proposed changes,
consider new ideas, and report back to the council. In April 1979, the committee
suggested that the city notify all sign owners of the status of their signs before public
review of the amendments began. The council agreed and suspended enforcement of the
regulations.
In July, 1980, the City Council approved amendments to the sign regulations and
enforcement of non-conforming signs was resumed. The 1980 amendment (1) enabled signs in
tourist areas to be located in yard areas where existing buildings preclude other
options, and (2) set more stringent standards for the signing of Calle Joaquin.
Page 2 -- Sign Program Status Report
3. Sign Amortization
One of the important topics discussed during the adoption of the sign regulations was
establishing an amortization program for non-conforming signs. The use of amortization
periods to gradually abate non-conforming signs is very common and its legality has been
tested in the courts. Section 15.40.190 of the regulations states that non-conforming
signs must be removed according to the schedule shown below. The amortization period for
non-conforming signs began on September 3, 1977 -- the date that the sign regulations
went into effect.
If Twice the Original Amortization Period
Value of Sign is:
Less than $500 two years
$500 - S999 three years
$1,000 - $2,999 five years
$3,000 - $5,900 eight years
More than $6,000 ten years
Sign amortization provided for the continued use of non-conforming signs while ensuring
that community standards would be met in a reasonable time frame. Amortization allows
for the cost of replacing a sign to be spread over several years. Signs with the
greatest original dollar value were given the longest amortization periods. Also, the
age of the sign is not considered; for all practical purposes most non-conforming signs
were given an extended life.
All non-conforming signs with amortization dates were to be removed by September 3, 1987.
4. ARC Review f Sien Exceiptions
When adopting the sign regulations, the City Council wanted to provide some flexibility
in administering the new standards. Section 15.40.080 allows people to ask the
Architectural Review Commission to grant an exception from the city's standards when:
"Unusual site conditions or other design factors may warrant(types, heights and sizes
of signs not otherwise permitted by these regulations." [15.40 080 A.]
"Application to the architectural review commission shall include reasons or
exceptional circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards
(e.g., nonconforming use, visual obstruction, unusual building,location on-site,
etc.)." [15.40.080 B.]
The reasons for granting an exception noted in the code are only examples and not an
exhaustive list. On a case-by-case basis, the applicant or the ARCI may identify other
reasons for allowing signs to exceed standards. About 33% of all approved sign
exceptions were for existing non-conforming signs; 66% were for new signs proposed as
part of new development projects.
I
With ongoing enforcement, we can expect more requests to occur. (Likely applicants for
exceptions are the owners of large non-conforming signs that are beyond their
amortization dates — gas station signs, motel signs, and signs for a variety of
commercial uses. _�
Page 3 — Sign Program Status Report
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
1. Cien Abatement: 1978 to 1986
In 1978, the city hired a Sign Enforcement Technician. Enforcement of nonconforming
signs was handled on an area-by-area basis. Compliance with the regulations was achieved
through the voluntary removal of non-conforming signs, replacement of nonconforming signs
as part of a new development projects, or the ARC's granting of sign exceptions.
Enforcement activities were suspended between April 1979 and July 1980 pending a
comprehensive notification of all sign owners and consideration of sign ordinance
amendments (see previous discussion). However, significant voluntary compliance occurred
during that period.
Between 1978 and May 1986, progress reports were prepared on the sign program. The
following information is taken from these reports.
Non-Conformine Sien Abatement 1978 -- 1986
Month/Year % Conformine % Non-Conformine
June 1978 (begin) 6% 94%
March 1979 15% 85%
December 1980 32% 68%
June 1981 35% 65%
March 1982 - 38% 62%
September 1982 40% 60%
January 1983 48% 52%
March 1984 65% 35%
March 1986 70% 30%
November 1986 81% 19%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1988 90% 10%
(estimated)
Source: San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Sign Enforcement Status Reports
(Candace Havens), 1978 - 1986
Near the end of this eight-year period, the sign enforcement technician was assigned
other department duties and sign abatement became an ongoing responsibility of the
department's staff. As of November 1986, there were approximately 210 sites with
non-conforming signs. y
Page 4 — Sign Program Status Report
i
2. Sian Abatement: 1987 to the Present
Since 1987, sign abatement has not been aggressively pursued. Voluntary compliance
continued, however, and non-conforming signs have been removed as part of new development
projects. The number of sites with non-conforming signs dropped from 210 to 160.
In September 1987, the final amortization period for non-conforming signs expired. At
that point, all signs within San Luis Obispo were required to comply with the city's
regulations or be granted a 'exception" by the ARC.
In January, 1988,. the staff began notifying owners of non-confo ming signs that their
signs must be made to conform. Some signs are non-conforming because they do not meet
ordinance standards and are past their amortization date. Others are non-conforming
solely because they do not have a sign permit. The following table summarizes this
information.
Remaining Non-Conforming Signs -- October 1988 (1)
I
Need Sign Permit Only: 74
I
Do Not Meet Standards: 91 (2)
TOTAL: 167
(1) This table shows the number of 'sites" that have non-conforming signs. There may be
more than one non-conforming sign on each site.
(2) Of this number, 42 of the signs have amortization dates; thelremaining 51 do not
have dates because they did not "lawfully exist" prior to the effective date of the sign
regulations (September 1977); therefore, cannot be considered "legal non-conforming.'
i
Source: San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, October 1988.
The number of signs that do not meet city standards (93) are associated with the
following types of business:
Page 5 -- Sign Program Status Report
Businesses with Non-Conforming Signs -- October 1988
Tvoe of Business Number of Sites
Bar/Restaurants 9
Motel/Hotel 14
Gas Stations 14
Auto Service/Parts etc. 7
Auto Sales Lots 4
Misc. Retail Uses 14
Service Commercial Uses 16
Banks I
Professional Offices 3
Other 11
TOTAL 93
As in the past. the department's sign abatement program is proceeding on an area-by-area
basis. Sign owners are notified that their signs need to comply with city standards and
are informed of the ARC "exception' process.
3. ARC Action on Sign Exceptions.
As previously mentioned, the ARC has the authority to grant exceptions to the sign
regulations. Recently, the ARC has considered, and denied, an exception request to the
Rexall Drug Store sign at the corner of Broad and Higuera Street. A sign exception
request for a new pole sign for Vons supermarket (formerly Safeway) on Marsh Street was
also denied. (For the Von's property, the ARC suggested monument signs as a more
appropriate alternative to the proposed pole sign.)
The following table shows the ARC's actions on sign exception requests:
Sien Excention Requests: 1984 - 1988(])
All Signs Existing Non-Conforming Signs
Approved: 112 56
Denied 3 20
TOTAL: 115 76
(1) Sign exceptions requests are most often acted on by the ARC but are sometimes acted
on by the Community Development Director as a "minor and incidental" item.
Source: Community Development Department, ARC agendas and sign logs. (1984-1988)
i
Page 6 — Sign Program Status Report
The 76 sign exception requests represent about 13 percent of the total sign permits
issued between 1984 and 1988. This statistic shows that the majority of signs being
proposed meet city standards. Many of the exception requests are part of new
development projects that are before the commission for architectural approval.
As sign enforcement continues, the department anticipates receiving more exception
requests. These exceptions will most probably involve larger signs (pole signs, roof
signs, etc.) whose amortization period expired one year ago (September 1987). For
example, in September 1988, the department received requests from an oil company and a
motel for exceptions for signage near Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. Tourist
commercial areas near Highway 101 (eg. Calle Joaquin, Madonna Road) include a
concentration of large non-conforming signs.
When the department and the ARC reviews a sign exception request, the following factors
are considered:
Whether adequate signage can be provided that leets city standards.
Special site conditions or building design that warrant an exceptional sign
solution.
The aesthetic impact of proposed signs.
The degree of exception requested (eg. the level of non-conformity
proposed)
The sign environment in the area.
The character of area's development.
Similar requests that have been approved.
CURRENT ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Community Development Department has assigned personnel to "close the file" on the
older non-conforming signs. This effort is going forward at a slow, but sustained
pace. About 20 percent of the owners of non-conforming signs, have received written
notification of the need to conform to city sign regulations. At this pace, owners of
all non-conforming signs should be notified within eighteen months -- by March 1990.
Based on past experience, of the 74 cases that only require sign permits, we expect a
positive response to our enforcement efforts. The remaining non-conforming signs (93)
will often involve exception requests and prolonged enforcement actions. We have
considered these sign situations and estimate that about 80 percent are stable situations
-- sites where:
No new development is foreseen in the near future
No change of land use is anticipated
No discretionary permit applications are anticipated (cg. use permits, etc.)
Signs appear structurally sound and are not likely to require jreplacement.
In essence, the most difficult enforcement situations remain to be completed and are now
being pursued by the Community Development Department. These enforcement situations,
however, have had the longest period of time to comply with community sign standards. A
complete listing of non-conforming signs is attached.
lJ/
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
i
1
I
1
1
I
CZ
U 1 d N dxl VI N N
I N N N C L L
i i �rvc .40, *0
40
1 N
i a � i > m i >
1 x x x s la x x
1
o t
W �
NI
.@.. 1
I
1
1
t
W I
^ 1
H �
O
= i
t
I
W I
I @ cc co
2 ' n m 9 co
1
1
1
Q m mcc m m
i m C-4 ri
O
N
W N \ •c cc cc @ M ll9 N C*
@ @@@ @ ^ m @ m m m m m
1
1
1
x xQ6
z I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
i
i ^
1 N
.roJ O C L
ro
' Y d u Y uyi J
y y ti ro ? t 6 ro
t y ,r
'7 (2L J Y
O rO
.
fA L L C] GQ
T
!0
U
[!7 sr C to ^ - •- C N C N d > N an L C S C W - m m •1 L
W C N Y L O 7 C O ro 1 �+ �+ v\ Y C
CJ 7 ro •- d J L L L L L7 . rL^ O L O
!'f
y L t t d
40m S v = y J+ U O 2 Z J iJ •iY S \L Z S G9 C V m ^ S W J �' d
I
J ;
S Q r
..+ ro ro ro c rrr
C ' � � � ro r r N N m m •n T
y1. ' r - - •- - - C L L L L
v 7 7 L' L L L 3: 'D 3: •L' L L L L ++ J L L S u t�J y D y d y Y
y W 1 Z N m m S m m D •p ro ro ro V. L L L L L L L '� y �•'� ""\ C 9 = 7 7 7
L ^� V T O O � C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � •- � 0 0 0 0 0
G L O L L L L L L L L L L •D q .b io L L r L t 0 ^ O O O L L ro m •- •-
6 G CG d• C OO OO OO Y Qi m m S m i.: J v , L '� t� [..J U V L: W W 1 4. :L A W L 'W' x S x
W 1
1 .•+ O_ P r M 1 ...1 M 47Z .r O G •�7 r= -. J � t` '.'" O P � ^ w
c• M W v N N O M v ^O h 2 O J :� h' h M M r ^ @ w i •t •C �.1 Y7 @ N - � :'\. Y
1 M cc +- _% M O -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 y
1 �
1
1 �
d
1
I L
� I �
2 t
W 1 J
= I L
U 1 6
1 w
1 ro
i T
1 ro
1 —
1 a
1 a
1 - o
1 y
I
1 �
1
p I
W I
� 1
f1l 1
ti 1
1
I
1
1
J 1 •
1
2 1
I
I
I
W I
U 1
H 1
H 1
O 1
= 1
1
1
1
1 � .
W I
O 1
1
I
1
H I m m m m m m
1
1
I
1
i ssc acs x xx lLS � s ds s ds s sdsdsdsxsxx xx x
2 1
1
1
1
i o
1 L
1 i/'f O
J
U
I C d W L J N
T 7 L L
1 d
w from C J r40
1 L J O W ro d d T C S
t d Y d w d N O L LI m y J
1 y 1p y Cl r O v1 d d Of T T 7 7 C J d W
1 O N r C C ro S C C 7w7 ,w T _� C N 4 m w •� U d INiI S
1 d J C r L J O w' W L d 7 L Lm.
m C o m r
1 7 m m r I d ! 2 2 t. d d, -C iC L U J J d
1 7 ¢ d = w � 71 N � d N 1A L w O Y m O d d C L O GO y C
cn 1 -0 N U w VI N L y ++ r J lL C w G L s w 7 J Y L L C 7 N O S• M C
cn I L 7 �r i o L m r L O ro C x o J J m d w - r C d ro
i 1 S C w J 0 0 L C J QI m C w C 41 i O d > +� d G to . �'1 7 pp w S C r C r
dN � � � � OJin '� d �� r ViC7ad C60C Gd � d
NUJ of ap I p1 v w •� w L
a% om = c% � � c a � r✓ =Go W U a � QCC cicU2 a � a S 'S ccnn = U3
1
1
t T
1 d
O 1 d N
d [n 1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m' m m m `ro `m m ro m J J O m m
w 1 L L !t ` - L 1- L L L 1`L N al N L L L N W N N W b W ` N o
C 6 SSSS _ S SSS , SSSirc S2SSS J : t
LU 1
y ; O .IV.1 1'9 P^9 P�7 n O 11'! n n n A n n 1rr n h n Qp` ISA m^ Ln rw n a mw . N
R N N N N N lV N 'n ^ m m P U3 r � R
I
1 �
1 m
I 1 �
C C v`I
I O
I .� 1� •N
j y C C m G CyC 1
I y V1 OI$ N O C
•fj 1 d 111 111 �}' f
ti 1 N 1 Y N
y=j I O Y d .+ u � N c� O
C 1 M 1 V L 1 •C d.+ Z f
p 1 O C d V .- L _�
V 1 d 6 f C X f d O 111
I Y •O T L C1 d l Y r U C
1 ro ro m C p N L p O ox
j _. T C1 N O p1 tr O U p 111
1 V C C 111 C C C m \ .L 1 +� +•'
1 y d \ \ i y y
1 - C N d 111 T O
I C C C C C Y C N d f 4 N N N
I y ro m m a1 ro en a � — L
41
i d i d s s ddl i s �i � w c � •+ •�
1
1
o i m
m
1 \
tJ! 1 m
1 h
1
1
m
I m
cm I
m
1 M
I O
I
2 m
W 1
m m m
Im \ \
H 1 m m
10=0 m m m m m m
1
I
m m a m m m a m
¢ i m m m m p p\ m m
i b .O b .c 10 .Q b O
1
1
1� 1 m m m CO m m m m m m m
p 1 P P P P P ? v P v v
I
1
1
I
LL i
= t
ic
1
I
1
1
1
1 m
s c
1 d O T f
i i C s M d O+ p d L a
1 6 m +� G C a C C ++ tri. 7 d ! d O Ct 69 +L+ L a L 1CO C a C
1 C v L O O d YI �r 1O �+ T S d f N N r O Q N d M C 10
1 C ro S O L d d 1Y d O O L of G r •- u +� L �W fA
1-1 +>• S O u d = t 111 O = m = ^' ro J 7 ++ .� 0 T 7 Q O C.i m C
1 Y C L M N C, C4 . C-A 6 m •� L 7 0 � d y Q •- 1 m C 4
tiff 1 ro m m 7 •- m • C •- C w C. 111 f p ¢ L7 L L J O C T++ O O
2 1 J1 O L m.6 0 = T J -� VI ro O s W d d 0] O m Y1 = ro �+ f
W 1 O 7 ro m d L m u O L v1 m .� 111 T 'o ++ C y -- O 111 m
S 1 T S m m 111 O . s G9 +•� m L •� d 1� d O m �a r .- ra J1 m 1n i s d L. •�
1••1 1 C m m 1 J C-3 Li O1 C m S N L 111 1 Y yN M C 7 m . �I O > L = y
1 m N O -W 1C0 p J 1�0 L t C y s 11 N ^ 7 W an d C�fl N Y 1CL d p L 41 W L L 1f0
Qi 1 D LL' OC m C cc 2 CM D = C= J L) Q S 't. CL U L) t= J a0 17 V Lm 1' Y Y � z Q N1 1 CL >
1
1
1
1
1
1
L1 1
O
J 1
d i1 +11 d QI OTI d N dT d 01 N
CN 1 Cm m m m L dL
d 1 C C t r t t s M5 1 c L t c Z t i .5 A t t t 0 d d N d a�Li d N M W a,
V 1 O O N N N w d YO N M Y1 111 N N N 111 1P a 111 iA 111 C .+ +� +r J +✓• M M M J 1
II
1 = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f
W 1
1 1(7 _ 'o, cc Y v 117 .0 nn .•+ n
p1 } m O v N N p� Off• 1�! N p N O WW P M M M P v m N f� 1!] N m P O h v {!7 �O f+f .f t19 U7
1 O .'•1 .y .•1 w O O .+ h If7 N 1'7 P O• •O n n ^ n h �+ M CVV I"� .•+ h 1"�
H f N N h N ..y .r .w �1 ..1 .•1 1'fJ I+f M h v Y 47 f\ f\ \ � n n m .� r .� w ..1 w N r1 H r1�—f O
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
` 1
1
z 1
W 1
Y I
= 1
O 1
:J 1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
W 1
� 1
= 1
1
1
1
1
W 1
n 1
r 1
O 1
a 1
I
i
1
1
U 1
� 1
F� 1
O 1
a 1
1
I
1
1
1
W �
� 1
1
1
1
i
W 1 �J li'l 1'9 N t\ 1� !� 1\ I�f
r 1 m m m m m m m O m S O m
4 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
p 1 P P 0• P P P P P � P P
1
1
1
1
1 S K S S d S S S S S S X S Y[ X S d S X X S S d X X Z
1
Vm
1 �
1
1 R
1 L
T O O
1 6 C C 2 y :m,
cc 10
1 L _ G LTi J VIL
p C t C 117
1 cn d T QI O u m a O C - y le N d > T
I C 7 111 0 N O y D d L d C Oi S 2 O C O L
111 y d• _ +L+ JY1 ^ 01 O C y T T d d S U Y = d
1 T c d d = d 1O d U d ++ C N J d N Y N
Y
1 A �+ A d +b t d CLI d U 111 �+ C WO W O s d
N 1 ro - Z C C
b b III C C N N U Y1 111 111 1C L C L 0 O L •- 1" b d •- L
d V1 L O d rl 111 d •� .- O • T Y1 .- d 1- ro �+ O L
j L U 7 1 V7 U V 1e 1r O In C t b > 3 L d
m J 6 O d L 0 TJ 1/I d L S O u d a•- d 41
1-+ 1 b d O. C > +1 d •� .r b N "+ d C L d > V W N C = •► L L 10 J v d
1p C7 W J d C Q O C ro ro O
O 1 6 m d m 117 �+ L d O d L ro S O d 0 V 10 O O m T 7 O m ro O ro L L • 10 q r
M ; G7 Y Z J 06 iA N m L m r N It V 2 6 W J V1 S O U O y f9 G J uA = U Vl W Q d7
1
1
1
1
1
1 LroL
��11 T 7p �I �I �1 CO Y d
pTI T 91 y d CI CTi W Cr W d/ W yLd T p a y V u N O m
ppIn
mQ i �Cp wCp Cp� CpNLZ yC Cp� .C6y+ tp� Cp rCpdi .Cpd+ WLR+ �Cp J 1 pLL L O o i > i M', J1 N N �r v. �► U a 2 16 1
6 1 6 6 6 6 >S ! t C C C 6 C >C C C C C a Z O O O O COO two
L d Q6 Ok. L y V�f iron N
N .r m .n Y7 W2 PJ O• u'f r N d •f '0E
O^' O Pf Pf ? •t m w
CI 1 ^ m m N Pl Ih 1.111O� N •••1 N N O yob p I+mJ •f .► N w w p h O Y7y�/�r��
y t w w w w w w w •••1 N P
..�.1 r O• .0.1 .Op H P .0+ ti m m N .�-1 I��a .�.1 .P-IV
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
N 1
� I
Z 1
W 1
c 1
= I
Q i
1
1
1
1
I
1 �
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
r� 1
W I
� 1
N 1
N 1
� 1
1
1
1
^ 1
r 1
O I
= 1
1
1
1
U 1
r 1
O t
1
1 ,
1
I
1
p 1
I
1
1
i
1 1�]
►W- 1 W � m m m m m
aa .\..1 0-
1
1
1
1
s xac acdacd
= 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
i `o
y N
1 1p d 111 L
1 J J J A
1 N N .� J
jpC c
1 O O d 0 _q d �• L 6�
1 N y N v N N S J O O cc
1 V YI = ~
0 .0 r y U 0
N 1 b C.-. - T cm r •O YI d 111
d O c �+
m L a*, J C
6 L 0 ro O NM c ch
N I d J i L X r w cc O
r RO n 111
b 1 r i V L� W >' S to W V C N CI
1 •L c
1
1 d c
1 c
1 vl
J A rr
�+ 1 .0L N N IOA L L
yW� I�pb 0 0 0 0 s 7 W c
0 ca 1 90
dy
L 7 r 1 1
tOr i to NttJ Qf U3 4NU;do
WC I
Cf I IA �ppO.. •O in 1� P I�fl •f 1A N //�/�
y 1 r •O r 1"9 N 1'�l
MEE' a ' r AGENDA
DAT '` . OCT '88
Oct . 2, 191RS
To : The sari Luis Obispo City Council
Subject : The City Sign Ordinance Amendments
D -ar City Council ,
As you k riolm::, The Concerned L I t i zeas 6f =.LO Coun t x have been
looking into the San Luis Obispo sign ordinance . While there is
1 I tt. le need for change !all til 90Y. or more of I t at toi s time there are
Lert,ain secfions that If removed would result In the fol ioiv,li c : snore
fairness for el!eryone ink-solved , less staff time spent , and the removal
L larger , older signs by attrition a.s busire =-ses turn over• .
We have been meeting regularly with, staff to finalize the detail
of a sign ordinance inititative that after refiling it four times
Should remove outdated sections of the sign ordinance . We hope to get
our final version .through the process- so that we can , if neccessary,.
start gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot . Those
most interested in getting this issue on the ballot are of course all
the people whose signs are under threat . We have also received much
interest from people who feel there are much la ger problems with the
planning process and would 1 i ke to use this as an e%,,ampl e of those
bigger problems.
But we giant to let ;,ou kno!.0 that we would prefer, to get thi =s.
single issue of older signs behind us and hope lie can resole this
issue in an easier manner, than the. inititative process . A simple
Counc I 1 voce may resolve th I s , especial 1 y since !tile do not oppose the
size requirements on new signs and that any nonconforming signs !hi it
come down In the fol fowl no years as bus ; nesses turn Over ! i th no need
fclr court or ini ti tat lve bat Ttl es . y
a_I.uc:h -an ac t I on !'.IUV l d rern Ilv e r b I gge C.t concer rl , th 1 1 y� 111 t��N
government changing the rules on property ol.lners after a person has
gone through the process of obtaining a legal building permit .
Hopeful 1 y !.je can work; together on th i s to the ea.t i sfac t ion of al l
I r.,vcll vea.
-- --- ---.. .- — --- S i.-F,c z r e 1. ---— ---- -- — -- —
Carlos Moerman , Chairman
RECEIVED
OM 3 I= Ron Bearce , Director
QW
*Denotes action by Lead Perrrm CrrY uE
p��,,v��: LIlSdB6t+O.CA
Respond Charles Long, Treasurer
L7 Alty• ��
I*Denotes action by Lead Person I
RespondmEETING `r AGENDA
r!�uncil
1.1 CAQ DATE OCT 4 .68 ITEM #
C Atty.
PS
Clerk-orig.
<Y/fl•mUL rv_
C,. —7 T.
Si n Ordinance Amcndmen
Section 15.40.080 B.
Application to the architectural review commission shall include reasons or exceptional
circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards such as:
1. Non-conforming use,
2. Visual obstruction.
3. Unusual building location on-site,
4. An existing sign for a designated historical resource property.
5. A_ non-conforming sign that identifies a unique local business (eg. the land use
or the architecture of the building is unioue).
6. Anon-conforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while
not disrupting views of prominent community landscape features
When granting an exemption for a non-conforming sign the architectural review commission
may rcauire that as many non-conforming elements of the sign be eliminated as possible
while allowing its basic form and character to remain
MICHAEL MULTARI
Community Development Director
RECEIVED
OCT, 4 19th
CITY CLERK
•Imams city of san lues owpo
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
990 Palm SireOYBos<.;9100•San,LWs. bb A .- .40. ..-8101)(805)54?-7170