Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 4 SIGN LEGISLATION 09-06-83DATE: TO: August 31, 1983 NEW BUSINESS NO. 4 9-6-83 Inter-Corn The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROm: Bill Huston, City Manager SUBJECT: SB 142 - SIGN LEGISLATION RECOMMENDATION: ? Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND: The City Council directed that this item be agendized in order that it could discuss the City's position on SB 142. To date, the City has opposed SB 142 because if enacted, the State would preempt provisions Of the City's ordinance concerning non-conforming signs. The City's sign code provides that upon change of use Or ownership, a non-conforming sign mus~.be made to conform to the current sign regulations. With the eXception of this provision, the City does not have a requirement that signs must be made to conform by a certain date. DISCUSSION: SB 142 has recently been amendeJ to grandfather all existing City sign codes. Attached is a summary of the amendments enacted by the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee on August 29. With these amendments, the League of California Cities and the sign industry has endorsed SB 142. BH/kaw ? ~ ~.~ Attachment 7. OPPOSITION WITHDRAWN Accord Reached On Si~n Leg. islation. SB 142 (Ellis). Negotiations this week have resulted in agreement on SB 142 which, in its original form, would have totally preempted city control of signs. The compromise agreement appears to resolve the concerns of all cities and counties. The agreed upon legislation is as follows: All existing sign ordinances which provide for amortization may continue in their present form and all signs may be amortized pursuant to those provisions. These ordinances may be reenacted or amended in ways which are not more restrictive. In addition, a "window" for 18 months until February of 1985 is provided for cities desiring to apply their amortization provisions to additional signs, to make their ordinances more stringent but not to shorten the amortization period. Cities which have ordinances which presently only apply in certain portions of the city may extend their ordinance to other portions of the city without any time restrictions as long as the amortization period is not more restrictive than at the present. In addition, cities annexing new areas may apply their existing sign ordinances to the newly annexed areas. (2) New cities may enact an ordinance within 3 years after their incorporation. This applies to all cities incorporated after March of 1982. (3) New ordinances by existing cities and counties which do not presently require amortization and more restrictive ordinances adopted after February of 1985 would have t~ meet the restrictions contained in the bill. Generally, these prohibit amortization of signs except for redevelopment areas., historical districts or properties, or signs which are not designed or engineered to last 15 years, i.e., painted signs, placard type signs and other signs which must be repainted or reconstructed after only a few years. However, these provi- sions would not prohi.bit non-amortization methods of removing signs such as the right to remove ~lleg~lly constructed signs, traffic hazards, abandoned signs, or signs being reconstructed or used for buildings .which are being substantially remodeled. In most other land use subject areas, the League would be concerned about limiting the future ability of cities to l eg'islate. However, it appears that in sign regU- lation most of the problems are caused by lack of regulation in the past. Current city sign ordinances amortize these old signs. New signs can be controlled by enacting adequate standards for new development, so that new amortization ordinances won't be needed. Cities should indicate their appreciation for the continuing efforts of Senator Ellis to convince the proponents of the legislation of the need to allow for reason- able local regulation and the efforts of Assembly GovernmentaJ Organization Committee Chairman Richard Alatorre who, in responding to specific concerns raised by the cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena, several times delayed hearings on the bill, forcing further negotiations eventually resulting in agreement. SB 142 is now expected to be easily approved by the Assembly Governmental Organi- zation Committee on Monday, August 29, and by +he full Assembly and Senate in the. remaining two weeks of the L.egislature.