HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/1998, 2 - SIGN AMORTIZATION AND ABATEMENT PROGRAM council
j acEnaa Repoat "� a
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
b
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand,Development Rel Manage
SUBJECT: SIGN AMORTIZATION AND ABATEMENT PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Accept the report on the sign amortization and abatement program and adopt a resolution
directing staff to correct non-conforming signs as individual re-development, remodeling,
expansion, or sign program updates are proposed.
DISCUSSION
Situation
With assistance from the community and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the City
Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City's Sign Regulations on July 3, 1997. The
purpose of this ARC work program was to correct cumbersome sign regulations and make the
ordinance easier to understand and apply. As discussed in Council's May 20, 1997 report on the
new sign regulations, the second phase of the work program is consideration of a possible
reactivation of the City's Sign Amortization Program.
Amortization is a program that provides for the gradual elimination or replacement of non-
conforming signs over a reasonable time period. Sign amortization in the City of San Luis
Obispo began with the first comprehensive sign ordinance amendment dating back to September
3, 1977. In order to meet legal requirements, the City's program contained amortization periods
ranging from two to ten years depending on the value of the non-conforming sign. The purpose
of the program was to allow continued use of non-conforming signs but ultimately ensuring that
community sign standards would be met.
Following a survey that began in 1977, the City mailed notices to all property owners of non-
conforming signs giving them the time frame that they had to work with in order to bring their
signs into compliance. With an original ordinance date of September 3, 1977, all non-
conforming signs were to be removed or replaced with conforming signs by September 3,
1987.
Many of the property owners who were subject to the City's Sign Amortization Program
cooperated and brought their signage into compliance. Research into the City's sign
amortization files, combined with a field survey conducted earlier this year, noted that 118 of
160 properties with non-conforming signs made the necessary changes to comply. There remain
42 property owners that were subject to the 1977 amortization program who have failed to bring
their signs into compliance.
Council Agenda Report-Sign Amortization and Abatement Program
Page 2
The City's amortization program remains in effect and was in no way modified or superseded
by more recent amendments to the City's Sign Regulations. The program was slowed down
however in the early 1990s due to work load, staffing, and other enforcement priorities.
Currently, City staff and the ARC gain compliance on a case by case basis when development
applications are processed for building modifications or for new signs on properties where fully
amortized signs remain.
Summary of the Law
Advertising signage is one area that is heavily regulated by State law. The California Business
and Professions Code contains several key statutes that govern how cities regulate non-
conforming signs. In summary, amortization programs established prior to March 12, 1983 are
lawful and signs that have had their amortization periods rum, can be abated. Since San Luis
Obispo's amortization program was established in 1977, we have the ability to abate any
remaining signs that have not been removed or made to comply with standards contained in that
1977 sign ordinance.
Changes in our sign regulations made after 1983 do not permit us to establish an amortization
program without payment of"fair and just" compensation. There are exceptions however in the
case of illegal, abandoned, damaged(beyond 50%),modified, moved, and hazardous signs.
In addition to statutes that regulate the amortization and removal of non-conforming signs, State
law also addresses how city's must accomplish abatement of these amortized signs. As would be
expected, any action by the City to declare these signs nuisances and abate them, requires all
affected property owners to be notified and given an opportunity to present arguments or
"protests"before the City Council why their sign(s) should not be abated.
Abatement Decisions
The first decision that the Council needs to make is how to proceed with the City's 1977 Sign
Amortization Program. The 42 property owners of the remaining non-conforming signs have
clearly had proper notice and sufficient time (over 20 years) to bring their signage into
compliance.
If the Council should choose to bring the remaining amortized signs into compliance through an
abatement process, the first step would be to hold a public hearing where the Council would
declare those remaining signs as illegal and a public nuisance. The next step will be schedule an
objection hearing before the City Council where property owners of these illegal signs can
present evidence and the Council can allow or overrule any objection. This objection hearing
must be properly noticed (using a format dictated by the statutes) and the property posted.
Following the protest hearing(s), all remaining illegal signs would be turned over to the City's
enforcement officer for abatement.
It is important to note that although the above process would be the quickest and most effective
method to gain compliance, it will certainly not be without controversy. Although there are a
few visibly non-conforming signs in town, primarily large free-standing pole signs (i.e. Royal
02
Council Agenda Report-Sign Amortization and Abatement Program
Page 3
Oak Motel, Vagabond Inn, and Dennys on Madonna Road), there are others that many would not
necessarily consider offensive or out of compliance (i.e. Boston Bagel's hanging sign, Gus's
Grocery awning sign, or the landmark Madonna Inn sign). The Council therefore needs to
consider the significance of any action to start a citywide abatement program.
Although the amortization program established in 1977 has received less attention in the past
decade, it is important to note that staff is still pursuing the removal or replacement of non-
conforming signage throughout the City. The current process involves working with property
owners when they come in with redevelopment plans or new signage programs. A recent
example would be the Shell station on Madonna Road as part of a station remodel. Through the
ARC process, the applicants agreed to lower the non-conforming freeway pole sign to the then
current standard of 25 feet.
Since any action on this important program will have an effect on existing business interests,
staff presented the Sign Amortization Program options to the Chamber of Commerce for review
and input. The Chamber strongly supports the City's Sign ordinance but feels that forcing
compliance through abatement is not necessary. The Chamber therefore recommends that the
City take a moderate approach whereby remaining non-conforming signs are brought into
compliance through on-going remodeling and redevelopment efforts. This approach would
require a long time period (perhaps decades) to achieve compliance, with some signs not
changing in the foreseeable future.
Issues with Taking the Recommended Action
Pursuing an aggressive abatement program will certainly affect 42 businesses in San Luis
Obispo. Signage is critical exposure for all businesses and is not without expense. However,
this community has consistently demanded quality signage with adoption of every sign ordinance
dating back to 1977. The question is how fast does the Council wish to accomplish bringing our
non-conforming signs into compliance.
Although staff's current method of gaining compliance on a case by case basis may be taking
longer than some may like, we still feel that the process is effective. In addition, in recent years
the City has made great efforts to change the perception that it is "unfriendly" to business. An
aggressive abatement program would likely become a "media event" and negatively effect the
progress we have made and the economic development goals established by Council.
We would therefore recommend that the Council direct staff to continue with this approach and
to work with property owners to ensure that future development plans are sensitive to our current
community's sign standards.
FISCAL IMPACT
Continuing with our present method of sign amortization will involve no additional staff
resources. Sign issues will be addressed through the normal planning application process where
processing fees are paid by the applicants pursuant to the City's fee schedule.
A•3
Council Agenda Report-Sign Amortization and Abatement Program
Page 4
Reactivating a more aggressive sign amortization program with abatement, will also involve use
of existing staff resources. The notification and hearing process will be accomplished by
Community Development. Abatement cases will be referred to the Neighborhood Services
Manager for initiation of required action. Work will be on a "as time allows" basis factoring
existing case loads and priorities. However, with the existing case load, it may be some time
before all of the cases could be processed and signs removed or replaced. Even with such delays,
however, compliance issues would be resolved in a much shorter period of time than through
attrition.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has two main alternatives to staff's recommended action:
1. Abandon the City's sign amortization program. Taking this action would mean that the
42 remaining properties would be allowed to retain their non-conforming signs. The signs
could be maintained and copy changed to accommodate new business owners. Such action
would be inequitable to those businesses which previously brought their signage into
compliance.
2. Reactivate the City's sign amortization program. This alternative involves full
reactivation of the program and initiating the hearings necessary to declare the remaining
signs public nuisances. This option would require a two step process outlined above that
would include a hearing to declare the nuisance and a second to allow land owner objections.
Attachments
1. Resolution in support of taking moderate approach
2. Resolution declaring remaining non-conforming signs as public nuisances and setting an
objection hearing.
3. Chamber of Commerce correspondence
M 'ING AGENDA
DATE �d ITEM #
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING NON-CONFORMING SIGNS SUBJECT TO
THE CITY'S 1977 AMORTIZATION PROGRAM INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH REMODELING AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 709 (1977 Series) on
August 2, 1977 that established new sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, these 1977 sign regulations contained provisions for amortization of signs
made non-conforming by the new regulations including provision for written notice and a valid
amortization period commencing on September 3, 1977; and
WHEREAS,there remain properties listed on the attached "Exhibit A"that were subject
to the City's amortization program who have failed to bring their signs into compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that these remaining signs be brought into
compliance as soon as practical in order to insure quality and uniform signage within the City.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council reaffirms the purposes the City's Sign Regulations
calling for the protection and enhancement of the character and natural beauty of the community
through proper signage and goals and objectives of the City's Sign Amortization Program.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs staff to require any remaining non-
conforming sign that was subject to the City's 1977 Sign Amortization Program to be made to
comply upon re-development, remodeling, or expansion of the use or abandonment,
modification,moving, or other physical change in the property's signage.
On motion of seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 1998.
OrOUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
STAO CTfi-N DIR
[IItCAO CCfJR E CH...
CkTORNEY GFW DIR
LERKIORIG C5;0LICE CYF
❑Mei AM CDIR
r
� UTI UTIL DIR
❑ E rkRS DIR
Resolntion No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:•
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Att ey ffJ gensen
v2' �P
"EXHIBIT A"
SITE ADDRESS CURRENT PROPERTY NON-CONFORMING SIGN(S) AMORT.
BUSINESS DESCRIP. PERIOD
ENDS
1708 Beach Sandercock 003-625-015 Large Roof Sign Jan. 1983
Moving
2143 Broad Gaslight Lounge 003-746-035 non conforming roof sign- too many Dec. 1982
signs
1127 Broad Boston Ba el 002-422-016 hanging sign Feb. 1983
2145 Broad Manuels liquor 003-746-035 sign too laze"Manuels" Dec. 1982
1460 Calle Joaquin Denny's 053-151-036 non-conforming,large pole sign sep. 1987
22 Chorro Mobil 052-174-002 non-conforming le sign Oct. 1982
767 Chorro Mc Lains Photo 002-302-018 wood sign,too laze Mar. 1983
1030 Chorro Mission News 002-425-001 wood sign,too low to sidewalk Feb. 1983
774 Foothill Cork&Bottle 052-041-079 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1985
798 Francis SL Powerhouse 004-923-008 prohibited hanging wood sign May 1983
214 Hi era Pauls dry clean 003-711-043 non-conforming,too laze Apr. 1983
236 Hi era Hayward 003-711-041 no permits,too large Oct. 1988
245 Hi era Ratliff welding 003-721-034 non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983
532 Hi era Campbell's 002-402-028 non-conforming roof sign Mar. 1983
669 Hi era Davidson's 002-422-019 non-conforming,too large Mar. 1983
1212 Hi era San Luis Liqr. 002-331-005 non-conforming ole sign Mar. 1983
100 Madonna Madonna Inn 004-511-009 non-conforming,too large,in setback Sep. 1987
208 Madonna Denny's 004-871-015 non-conforming laze pole sign Jun. 1988
210 Madonna Vagabond Inn 004871-016 non-conforming laze pole sign Sep. 1987
212 Madonna IHOP 004871-010 non-conforming laze pole sign Aug. 1982
214 Madonna Royal Oak 004871-010 non-conforming GIANT pole sign Sep. 1987
886 Monterey Bello's 002-416-018 non-conforming ojectin sign Apr. 1983
1266 Monterey Am. Cleaners 001-222-015 non-conforming sign,too large Apr. 1983
1335 Monterey Computer Stuff 002-333-004 non-conforming projecting sign May 1983
1441 Monterey Mid State Elec. 001-231-024 Non-conforming roof sign A r. 1983
1599 Monterey Cap.Jacks vid. 001-234-005 non-conforming ole sign Feb. 1982
1601 Monterey Pepe Delizados 001-237-001 non-conforming ole sign Se . 1985
1628 Monterey Palm Motel 001-142-003 non-conforming le sign in setback Sep. 1983
1670 Monterey Villa Motel 001-142-007 Non-conforming sign Dec. 1987
1701 Monterey Standard Mot. 001-151-014 Non-conforming sim too large Dec. 1982
2223 Monterey Motel Inn 001-112-018 Non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1987
!000 Olive Olive Tree Inn 001-112-018 Non-conforming, in setback' Sep. 1987
1001 Olive Coachman 001-204-021 non-conforming monument signs Sep. 1987
1638 Osos Gus's Grocery 003-553-014 awning sign where not allowed Jan. 1983
150 Pismo SDRC rec. 002-501-002 too large,non-conforming Feb. 1983
1951 Santa Barbara 2 businesses? 003-647-016 Signs in Setback, city right o way Feb. 1983
296 Santa Rosa Shell 001-113-010 non-conforming ole sign Jan. 1983
363 Santa Rosa Union 76 001-112-016 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1987
313 South McCarth 's 004-811-013 non-conforming roof sign Jan. 1983
1340 Taft Union 76 001-042-022 non-conforming ole sign Oct. 1982
625 Toro El Torn motel 001-121-030 non-conforming ole si s Oct. 1982
1390 Walker I CN signs 002-505-005 non-conforming ole sign aband. A . 1983
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DECLARING VARIOUS ILLEGAL ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING
DISPLAYS AS PUBLIC NUISANCES AND SETTING AN OBJECTION HEARING
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 709 (1977 Series) on
August 2, 1977 that established new sign regulations for the City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, these new sign regulations contained provisions for amortization of signs
made non-conforming by the new regulations including provision for written notice and a valid
amortization period commencing on September 3, 1977; and
WHEREAS, those properties listed on the attached "Exhibit A" were subject to the
City's amortization program, were notified to remove or conform with the amended sign
regulations, and have failed to comply with the program; and
WHEREAS, Section 5494 of the California Business and Professions Code states that
these non-conforming signs are presumed illegal "once the amortization period provided by the
ordinance or regulation rendering them non-conforming has lapsed and conformance has not
been accomplished"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 6, 1998 and has
considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council reaffirms the purposes the City's Sign Regulations
calling for the protection and enhancement of the character and natural beauty of the community
through proper signage and goals and objectives of the City's Sign Amortization Program.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that the signs listed on the attached
"Exhibit A"are public nuisances and shall be subject to abatement.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs staff to conspicuously post "Notice to
Remove Illegal Advertising Display" on those properties identified in "Exhibit A" as well as
provide written notice of proposed abatement in a manner as prescribed by law.
41. 8
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of . 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
Z• q
"EJMIT A"
SITE ADDRESS CURRENT PROPERTY NON-CONFORMING SIGN(S) AMORT.
BUSINESS DESCRIP. PERIOD
ENDS
1708 Beach Sandercock 003-625-015 Large Roof Sign Jan. 1983
Movin
2143 Broad Gaslight Lounge 003-746-035 non conforming roof sign- too many Dec. 1982
signs
1127 Broad Boston Bagel 002-422-016 hanging sign Feb. 1983
2145 Broad Manuels liquor 003-746-035 sign too laze"Manuels" Dec. 1982
1460 Calle Joaquin Denny's 053-151-036 non-conforming,large pole sign Sep. 1987
22 Chorro Mobil 052-174-002 non-conforming ole sign Oct. 1982
767 Chorro Mc Lains Photo 002-302-018 wood sign,too large Mar. 1983
1030 Chorro Mission News 002-425-001 wood sign,too low to sidewalk Feb. 1983
774 Foothill Cork&Bottle 052-041-079 non-conforming ole sign Sep. 1985
798 Francis SL Powerhouse 004-923-008 prohibited hanging wood sign May 1983
214 Hi era Pauls dry clean 003-711-043 non-conforming,too lare Apr. 1983
236 Hi era Hayward 003-711-041 no permits,too large Oct. 1988
245 Hi era Ratliff welding 003-721-034 non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983
532 Hi era Campbell's 002-402-028 non-conforming roof sign Mar. 1983
669 Higuera Davidson's 002-422-019 non-conforming,too la Mar. 1983
1212 Hi era San Luis Li r. 002-331-005 non-conforming ole sign Mar. 1983
100 Madonna Madonna Inn 004-511-009 non-conforming,too large,insetback S . 1987
208 Madonna Denny's 004871-015 non-confonnin large le si Jun. 1988
210 Madonna Vagabond Inn 004871-016 non-conformin large le si S . 1987
212 Madonna IHOP 004-871-010 non-conforminglarge ole signAu . 1982
214 Madonna Royal Oak 004-871-010 non-conforming GIANT pole sign Sep. 1987
886 Monterey Bello's 002-416-018 non-conforming projecting sign Apr. 1983
1266 Monterey Am. Cleaners 001-222-015 non-conforming sign, too laze Apr. 1983
1335 Monterey Computer Stuff 002-333-004 non-conforming projecting sign May 1983
1441 Monterey Mid State Elec. 001-231-024 Non-conforming roof sign Apr. 1983
1599 Monterey Cap.Jacks vid. 001-234-005 non-conforming ole sign Feb. 1982
1601 Monterey Pepe Del dos 001-237-001 non-conforming le sign Sep. 1985
1628 Monterey Palm Motel 001-142-003 non-conforming pole sign in setback Sep. 1983
1670 Monterey Villa Motel 001-142-007 Non-conforming sign Dec. 1987
1701 Monterey Standard Mot. 001-151-014 Non-conforming sign,too large Dec. 1982
2223 Monterey Motel Inn 001-112-018 Non-conforming le sign Sep. 1987
!000 Olive Olive Tree Inn 001-112-018 Non-conforming,in setback' Sep. 1987
1001 Olive Coachman 001-204-021 non-conforming monument signs Se . 1987
1638 Osos Gus's Grocery 003-553-014 awning sign where not allowed Jan. 1983
150 Pismo SDRC rec. 002-501-002 too large,non-conforming Feb. 1983
1951 Santa Barbara 2 businesses ? 003-647-016 Signs in Setback,city right o way Feb. 1983
296 Santa Rosa Shell 001-113-010 non-conforming ole sign Jan. 1983
363 Santa Rosa Union 76 001-112-016 non-conforming ole sign S 1987
313 South McCarth 's 004811-013 non-conformingroof si Jan. E
1340 Taft Union 76 001-042-022 non-conformingole sign Oct.
625 Toro El Toro motel 001-121-030 non-conformingole signs s Oct.
1390 Walker CN signs002-505-005 non-conformingole sign aband. A r.
RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce MAY 27 1998
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
e-mail: slochamber®siochamberorg
David E. Garth, President/CEO
May 26, 1998
Ron Whisenand
Development Review Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Sign Ordinance Enforcement
Dear Ron
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has been actively involved with the City's
Sign Regulations since the late 1970s. The Chamber believes the purpose of the
ordinance is two-fold. One it serves as a "level playing field", requiring all businesses
in the City to comply with the same regulations. Two, it is a useful economic
development tool since it improves the aesthetic quality of the City.
The Chamber has been, and continues to be,in favor of moderate enforcement levels of
the ordinance. The Chamber feels that enforcement is appropriate when a permit for
development change is issued on a property. It is at that time that any existing non-
complying signs should be brought into compliance.
At this time, the Chamber does not think it is necessary force compliance. The
moderate approach is working well and is not unduly burdensome. Thank you for
seeking our input on this matter.
Sincerely,
TEN YEARS
Shelly Stanwyck
Director of Governmental Affairs
0
ACCREDITED
C.. R w eo..wee
ME'"TIE AGENDA
DATE /o & .P ITEM # --
MEMO
To: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Williams and Mayor Settle, and
John Dunn, Jeff Jorgensen, Arnold Jonas, Ronald Whisenand, and Lee Pierce
From: Council Member Ken Schwartz
Re: October 6 Agenda Item 2, Sign Amortization and Abatement Program
It pains me to learn that we are still talking about sign abatement after years(beginning well
before 1977) of community debate on signs. I recognize that we are now dealing with some of
the more difficult non-conforming signs, and possibly the most intransigent sign owners, but,
nevertheless, I believe that there is a middle ground between the two positions contained in the
staff report that might hasten the removal of these non-conforming signs.
I recommend that the Council:
1. Defer action on this item and continue the matter for a period of say, 3 months,
2. Direct the staff to formulate a letter to be sent to the owner of each of the remaining
non-conforming signs and to "personalize" each letter so that it relates to the specific
problems of the sign(s)in question. The essential parts of such letter would be:
a. A statement to the effect that the City Council has deferred taking a strict
abatement action until owners of non-conforming signs could be polled by staff to
determine the specific time period within which each owner plans to remove or
otherwise bring his/her non-conforming sign(s)into conformity with the sign
ordinance.
b. Provide specific time periods from which the owner would choose;e.g.
I plan to remove or bring my non-conforming sign into compliance before July 1,
1999;before July 1, 2000;before July 1, 2001. Enclose a post card return.
c. The results ofthis poll will be reported back to the City Council at its meeting of
March 1999, at which time the Council will determine if owner's abatement
time schedules are sufficiently expeditious to warrant Council delay in pursuing
abatement action.
It is unfair to the the vast majority of owners of non-conforming signs who worked with the City
to remove or modify their signs only to find that the City has not moved diligently to require the
removal or modification of the remainder.
rE33etEKKIORIG
CIL DD DIA
❑FIN DIR
❑FIRE CFS
RNEY ❑PW DIR
0 POLICE CHF
O RTC DIR
t]tlTll DIR
0 p a DIR
MErTh AGENDA
DATE ITEM # _
MEMO
To: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Williams and Mayor Settle, and
John Dunn, Jeff Jorgensen,Arnold Jonas,Ronald Whisenand, and Lee Pierce
From: Council Member Ken Schwartz*
Re: October 6 Agenda Item 2, Sign Amortization and Abatement Program
It pains me to learn that we are still talking about sign abatement after years(beginning well
before 1977)of community debate on signs. I recognize that we are now dealing with some of
the more difficult non-conforming signs, and possibly the most intransigent sign owners,but,
nevertheless, I believe that there is a middle ground between the two positions contained in the
staff report that might hasten the removal of these non-conforming signs.
I recommend that the Council:
1. Defer action on this item and continue the matter for a period of say, 3 months,
2. Direct the staff to formulate a letter to be sent to the owner of each ofthe remaining
non-conforming signs and to "personalize" each letter so that it relates to the specific
problems of the sign(s)in question. The essential parts of such letter would be:
a. A statement to the effect that the City Council has deferred taking a strict
abatement action until owners of non-conforming signs could be polled by staff to
determine the specific time period within which each owner plans to remove or
otherwise bring his/her non-conforming sign(s)into conformity with the sign
ordinance.
b. Provide specific time periods from which the owner would choose;e.g.
I plan to remove or bring my non-conforming sign into compliance before July 1,
1999;before July 1, 2000;before July 1, 2001. Enclose a post card return.
c. The results of this poll will be reported back to the City Council at its meeting of
March , 1999, at which time the Council will determine if owner's abatement
time schedules are sufficiently expeditious to warrant Council delay in pursuing
abatement action.
It is unfair to the the vast majority of owners of non-conforming signs who worked with the City
to remove or modify their signs only to find that the City has not moved diligently to require the
removal or modification of the remainder.
roA"rO
DD DIR❑FIN DIR
❑FIRE CH;ZF
EY t7 PIN DIR
RIG ❑POLICE CHF
0 HEC DIR
O UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR