05-03-1976 - Regular Meeting - MinutesU
L�
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF WEST_COVINA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 3, 1976
The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called
to order at 5:05 P.M. by Mayor Nevin Browne in the City Manager's
Conference Room.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Browne; Councilmen: Chappell,
Miller, Shearer, Tice
The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission was
called to order at 5:05 P.M. by Chairman Pro Tem Kochis in
the City Manager's Conference Room.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Bacon; Commissioners: Christopher,
Kochis, Jordon.
Absent: Commissioner Jackson.
Others Present: M. Miller, Public Services Director
L. Preston, City Clerk
R. Diaz, Planning Director
H. Lange, Graphic Arts Delineator
D. Bonaparte, Special Services
B. Freemon,'Reporter, S.G.V.D.T.
C. Jones, League of Women Voters
M. Murphy, Resident
OTHERtMATTERS
RESOLUTION NO..5234 Mayor Browne presented:
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA,
COMMENDING CHARLES J. DUN FOR HIS
S SERVICES TO THE CITY.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded by Councilman Miller to waive further reading of the
body of the resolution. Motion carried.
Motion made by Councilman Shearer,
seconded"by Councilman Miller to adopt said resolution and
• that it include perma plaquing. Motion carried on roll call
vote as follows:
AYES: Miller, Chappell, Shearer, Tice,
Browne
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
- 1 -
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page Two
Other Matters
PROCLAMATION' Mayor Browne: If there are no objections,
I will proe•laim May 21-22, 1976 "HONOR
• THE.DEAD BY HELPING THE LIVING."
.In answer to question by Councilman
Chappell, it was explained that this is actually Poppy Day for
the Veterans.
REVIEW OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE
Mayor Browne: Going back several months, the City
Council requested a meeting with the
Planning Commission to review the
existing Sign Ordinances•. Due to the fact that so many
variances and changes over the years have proliferated some
areas of the Ordinances, we felt.we should sit down and discuss
some of the changes. Ray Diaz has circulated a questionnaire
to the members of the City Council and the Planning Commission,
and as a result, he has come up with the recommendations that
we have before us tonight. At this time I would ask Mr. Diaz
to give us a Staff report based upon his recommendations.
You also might note that there are two additional items on one
sheet, and another one on the second sheet before us tonight
that were not incorporated into the original changes.
• Mr. Diaz: The purpose for redoing the Sign
Ordinances, in addition to what the
Mayor has indicated, was to reorganize
and restructure the Sign Ordinances. I think that when the City
Attorney, George Wakefield, had to read the Ordinance amending
the Parking Directional Sign and go through 18 different sections
of the Code that had to be amended, it brought -home the problems
that we have with the existing Sign Ordinance. The problem that
we have is that each time we want to amend the Sign portion of
the Zoning Ordinance, we have to amend each and every section.
In the past, we have had occasion where not all sections had
been hit, and we then have to wonder (1) weren't they covered
because that was the intent, or (2) were they left out as -a
result of an oversight.
We went over all of the Sign Ordinances
in every Zone and tried to combine them into the recommended
Ordinance that you have here before you.
Secondly,. we wanted to clarify statements
of policy which were being carried out at the time that Sign
Permits were being issued, and also place those statements of
• policy within the Code so that it would be very clear as to what
would be and what would not be permitted. 1
- 2 -
•
•
•
JOINT MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page Three
We also looked at the problems with
enforcement of certain portions of the Ordinance. There we
took a two -fold stand: (1) What were the problems with
enforcement, and (2),In looking at those sections where
enforcement was a problem, asking ourselves, "Is enforcement
a problem because the regulation is unnecessary or unreasonable,
or is it a problem that we should c6ntinue to cope with and a
regulation that we need?"
I have asked the primary Staff individual
in charge of Sign Ordinance enforcement, Dick Bonaparte, to be
here this evening so that he could answer directly any questions
you might have. And, I have asked Hal Lange of our Staff, who
did the bulk of the work on the Sign Ordinance and who is in
charge of issuing most of the Sign Permits, to be here to
answer any questions.
Before going into the Ordinance itself,
I would like to explain the two items you have before you that
were added. 10602.21a covers service stations. We qualified
what we wish to have on the additional A -board signs. "Said
sign shall contain the selling price of gasoline." I believe
this was the intention when the.signs were given to the service
stations, and it should be spelled out and required. Perhaps,
we want to go a step further and say that the service stations
sha.11be required to, show the price of gasoline on the signs.
The second sign would be to allow
automobile agencies an additional sign above that which is
currently permitted, two or three square feet per running foot
of street frontage, one full sign not to exceed 35 feet in
height and not to exceed 50 square feet per face or 100 square
feet inttotal to be placed in a permanent landscaped area no
less than 24 square feet. The reason for this is that every
automobile agency in the City now has a detached pole sign that
is there with a variance. When we have that many variances,
it is rather clear that the Code is not meeting our needs.
Therefore, we feel that automobile agencies should have this
particular additional sign as a matter of right, rather than
going through a variance procedure.
Councilman Tice: If we pass this, would that make all
of the automobile agencies conforming?
Mr. Diaz: Probably not. They are all slegal now
because they are there by variance,
but the variances that were granted
were for various sizes. A few of them (the exact number I
do not have off -hand) probably exceed the 50 square feet per
face.
3 -
•
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page Four
Review of the Sign Ordinance
We would still have the variance and
waiver procedure, but that was not covered in the Ordinance
before you. I feel that it should be brought up for discussion.
The other item that you have attached
is with regard to window signs. There is one thing that I have
found throughout the City that is probably, in my estimation,
the quickest way to degrade a shopping center than anything,
that is over extension of window signs. When you have paper
signs plastered all over the window, this tends to degrade
from a commercial area, again, in my estimation. Withingthe
proposed Sign Ordinance we have indicated that window signs
should be limited to 33 percent of the window, and that no
differentiation should be made between permanent and temporary
window signs. The reason for that is that it is almost impossible
to enforce and determine what is temporary and what is permanent.
Right now, an applicant is allowed 20 percent temporary window
sign and 12 percent permanent window sign. So, we have added
the two and rounded it off to 33 percent,.to eliminate the
differentiation between the two.
I believe that 33 percent is excessive.
You have before you the window sign requirements within the City
of Beverly Hills; it goes the other way. It allows up to 25
percent of the window to have signs, but when you read the
limitations, it becomes very difficult to get to the 25 percent.
Perhaps something in between. I would like to see the window
signs limited to a maximum of 25 percent without differentiation.
I don't know whether the other items are practical from our
standpoint because quite a few of our businesses are highway
related. In.other words, they depend on traffic going by.
Whereas in the Beverly Hills situation, the central business
district is pedestrian traffic. So, limiting the size of the
letters to 3/4 inch in height is impractical for our use.
I put this document before you to give you some basis - this
is what we have now; this is what we could have; we could have
something in between; we are satisfied with what we have now.
We are attempting, also, to discourage
price signs.
Councilman Chappell: When I saw the 3?
it was excessive;
is one.heck of a
set aside for a big -paper sign. Maybe we
tell us what he has observed and what his
am I getting ahead of this?
percent, I thought
it seems to me that
lot of space to be
could have a sign man
problems are. Or,
• Mr. Diaz: Well, I would like to go into the final
item.
- 4 -
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page Five
The other item is the issuance of
variances and how it should be done. The current adopted Sign
• Ordinance calls for d6Board of Sign Adjustments to be established.
That Board would have five members appointed by the Council.
It would review signs and could grant up to 20'percent modifica-
tion of the existing Sign Code. This Board was never established.
The problem thatSS,taff has with variances
is that you do have the four showings that have to be met. The
main one is that,"There is something unique or unusual about
your property that does not allow you the same rights as another
individual." This becomes very difficult to show. Perhaps the
Council and the Commission would like to place in some sort of
waiver with a maximum limitation so that an individual who
could not go with the proposed Ordinance could be granted
approval for his sign without having to show the four showings
for a variance. Of the sign variances that have been applied
for, some 76 percent of them have been approved. They have
been mainly for additional signs.
(The Council, Commission and Staff
reviewed the statistics of approved variances over the years.)
Councilman Chappell: Does Staff feel that we have a big
problem now?
• Mr. Diaz.: Well, the other thing is that the
showingp that have to be made by an
applicant.for a variance have also
changed since 1969 by State Code. So, if it is our intent
to alleviate any undue hardship, the variance procedure may
not be the way to go.
Staff would like some direction at
this point - whether we should try to come up with a different
method, a waiver situation, or that we should continue the
variance procedure.
(Mr. Diaz briefly reviewed the list
of significant changes as sent to each of the Councilmen and
Commissioners prior to this meeting.)
The key problems, to summarize, that
we wanted to solve here: (1) We would like to see some direction
from this meeting to restructure the existing Ordinance to make
it easier to read and to amend. (2) We would like to see some
direction re the problems with window signs - enforceability and
• percentage. .(3) We would like to determine whether or not we
should continue the variance procedure, or have a waiver
procedure set up, or remove the Sign Ordinance from the Municipal
Code and have no variance procedure at all.
That, basically, summarizes the Staff
report on the proposed Ordinance.
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page 'Six
Councilman Shearer: Did you take a look at the variances
that have been requested and mostly
• approved over the last five to six
.years, with these changes, how many of those would have been
allowed without a variance?
Mr. Diaz: I don't believe that we did. Most of the
variances that were granted were for
signs and additional signage. So, the
variances that were granted have not been put to Code here,
with the exception of automobile agencies.
Councilman Shearer: So, with the exception of the window
signs, the size and amount of signage
is really not being addressed.
Mr. Diaz: It is with the building identification
sign. That can be used to give
additional signage to a major tenant
above the first floor that would not normally be granted signage.
Councilman Shearer:
would have still been a
• Mr. Diaz:
Councilman Chappell:
Mr. Diaz:
Inthe past I recollect the Alpha Beta
sign, the Mandy Williams sign. Neither
one of those... Both of those, rather,
variance under even this Ordinance.
Right. That is correct.
When this is all over with, will some-
one coming in wanting to build a new
building get just one little packet
of paper?
Right.
Councilman Chappell: That is a tremendous improvement to
start with. He will get it at the
time he comes in and will not have
to worry about coming.in sometime later and finding out that
he has a real problem and didn't realize it.because he didn't
get a packet of information.
Mr. Diaz: As soon as the Ordinance is adopted, we
propose to send,or advise that we have
available copies of the Sign Ordinance
to those sign companies who have done a vast amount of business
in the City.
• Councilman Chappell: I do not see any big hang-ups with
using the variance procedure as a
part of our program. If we have
narrowed down the last three or four years to two a year, I
think that those were reasonable requests. We only turned
- 6 -
LJ
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page Seven
Review of the Sign Ordinance
down one, I think, in that time. So, that procedure, in my
mind, is still adequate.
I don't like 33 percent window signs.
.It, to me, is excessive as I look over our community. I think
we should keep it to a smaller amount. But,'I would like to
hear Mr. Bonaparte's expression on this.
Mayor Browne: I would like to add one thing. In
relation to the window signs, I know
that there has been some subterfuge
on that where they will hang signs behind the window, not
affixed•to the window,, to get by the Window Sign Ordinance.
in the Ordinance on that?
Have you taken any provisions
Mr. Diaz: There, the way that we interpret it
is that the sign is actually showing
outside; even if it is six inches
back, it is still counted as a window -sign.
Mr. Bonaparte: Yes. Somebody said a number of years
back that if it was back some 18 or
24 inches, it was legally not considered
a window sign. But, .any sign that can be seen readily through
the window, that is what it is there for. Back six inches would
be considered a window sign.
Mayor Browne: You better have a condition 'setback,
from the window surface.
Councilman Chappell: What kind of problems have you run.
into Mr. Bonaparte, and'what kinds of
problems do you forsee if we limit
the window sign coverage to 25 percent?
Mr. Bonaparte:, We have one business that uses about
80 percent, if they can (Millionnaire
Mattress Factory). Since the proposed
change to 33 percent, I have been looking at windows and doing
some imagining. I think it all depends upon what window you
are talking about. As far as I am concerned, 33 percent is
not excessive, based:on the way you determine what a sign is.
.If they are individual letters, then the outerrextension over
the whole business is considered part of that. So, if you
have an 8 x 10 foot glass front on your store, and you do a
third of that in letters, it could look very nice, I think.
If you have a•store like Millionnaire Mattress that is all
glass across the front and one side, if you do a third of that,
one third of his is three times what you have,,. -,in your entirety
and it can look excessive.
7 -
•
CJ
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL .,May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page,Eigtt
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mayor Browne: If you had gold leaf letters on the
window for identity or advertising,
individual letters, it would be the
outside perimeter of that that would be the size determination,
would it not?
Mr. Bonaparte: Well, the truth of the matter is that
most of the people put those on as an
after -thought. They get their identifying
sign, and then put gold leaf in the window and do not even want
to get a sign for that. I assume that by going to a larger
percent for window signs, there would be no permits for window
signs; is that correct?
Mr. Diaz: Right.
Mr. Bonaparte:'. That.would be a big step. I don't
think it.is.a big money maker for the
City.
It is hard to 'control because the
temporary signs are supposed to be changed in their entirety
every 30 days. There is just no way you can keep.track of it
unless you go to every store every 30 days. It looks a little
different if they just change one word. How can you argue with
them? This would make it a little more realistic. But, I,
personally, do.not think it is excessive.
Councilman Shearer: Should there be a condition to cover
the type of _thing Mr..Bonaparte
mentioned - not only a maximum percentage
but also a maximum set up so that a store that is all windows
versus a store with limited windows will be under some type of
control?
Mr. Bonaparte: Then you would not have a situation like
Millionnaire Mattress.
Mayor Browne: Are you talking about putting the name
permanently on the window?
Mr. Bonaparte: If they want to put their name permanently
on the window, they are allowed 12 percent
coverage. They are also allowed 3 square
feet for every 'lineal foot of frontage for a sign.
Mayor Browne:
Chairman Bacon:
I think it has to be tightened up.
I think what -Councilman Shearer suggested
is a good idea - taking the store that
is almost all glass and having some sort of
8 -
JOINtI MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page 'Nine --!,-
Review of•the Sign. Ordinance
limit based on square footage as opposed to the store which
simply has a display window and the rest of the building is
•, concrete which he is not able to utilize for temporary signs
at all. Maybe some,coinbination so that you do not get the
excessive look.
Councilman Chappell:. How many people would be out of conformity
with using the figure of 25 percent?
Mr. Bonaparte: Right now, probably not verytrimany.
Councilman Chappell: Two or three, 15 or 40 - no way of
knowing?
Mr. Bonaparte: I'd say one of those. I don't know;
I really have no idea.. It only takes
one to make it look ridiculous. Most
of the people do not go overboard, but a few of them do. People
do seem to go all out when they are closing out their business.
Commissioner Kochis: There is one in the new shopping
center, a delicatessen, I believe,
that is just covered with paper signs
in the window.
Councilman Shearer: I doubt that I could tell the difference
• between 25 and 33 percent unless I
measured it.
Mr. Diaz: Well, perhaps, with the information
that we have here, Staff knows the
direction that the Council and the
Commission want to follow - a realistic tightening of the signs...
Chairman Bacon: I agree; I like the 25 percent over the
33 percent.
Councilman Tice: Is there a possibility of going with
the 33 or 25 percent up to a certain
size window, and restricting beyond
that so they do not plaster signs all around the building?
Mr.Diaz: That is the thing we would work on.
Councilman Tice: Yes, because -on -some windows even 25
percent would look bad.
• Mayor Browne: Is there anything else that you are
findinga problem with, Mr. Bonaparte?
�t
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3,, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4Ten-.1
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Bonaparte: Yes, there are a couple of other things
which I feel represent the crux of my
• problems. The window problem is a
great part of it. The things we have discussed would be the
right direction to go, I think..
The other thing is the service stations.
Every one of them that I can think of is continually begging for
another sign. The two that they are allowed were put there with
the intent that they would put pricing on them. But every
service station in West Covina, and I guess everywhere else,
depends on something else to make their living. They do not
pump gas to make a living. They promote tires, etc. For
example, each month Mobile sends out a special sign that they
want their dealers to put up. So, all of the service station
people are upset over the -signs. I have looked at the stations
in other cities that I have been in, and I do not see where
three signs look terrible. I think this might be the time for
review.
In the last three or four5ears, since
the energy -crunch, there are at least three grades of gas. So,
a lot of the guys would like another sign to list the special
gas prices on. They will not all fit on the signs they have.
Mayor Browne:
gas. Usually those are
That is one thing that I was going to
bring up. Other cities require the
posting of prices of all grades of
on a separate pole.
Then this advertising sign that you
are speaking of, normally it depends on the size of the station.
They limit it to two, but if you are on a corner and pretty well
face on each side, they allow three and four.
Mr. Bonaparte:
On a big station it doesn't look bad at all.
Mayor Browne: That's right. But, getting back to the
price factor, I don't think the prices
should be on the A -board signs. I
think they should be fixed on a read -a -board type or pole
fixture sign, and by requirement of the City. There have been
so many complaints where they will have one price up, say low
lead gasoline for 54 cents, and then the other gas is not
proportionate to that price. It is a misleading advertising
factor.
• Mr. Miller: There is another problem related to that.
Those stations that have two bays -
one self -serve and the other service,
and the price that is posted indicates self -serve, i.e. the
Union Station. Someone driving into the other area will find it
will cost him two or three cents a gallon more.
- 10 -
•
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page _'Eleven
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mayor Browne: I would think that would have to be
clearly defined:
Mr. Miller: That would be three different grades,,
plus two different service prices.
Councilman Chappell: It wasn't too many years ago that the
gas stations came in to request price
signs. They were granted the signs,
and now, if you notice, they don't use them entirely. We
should have an ordinance that they all post their prices.
Mayor Browne: That would be for both self-service
and full service.
Councilman Chappell: Yes.
Councilman Miller: I agree with posting the prices, and
with the additional signage as necessary
to advertise the different products
that they have to sell. But, what is confusing to me at this
point is, you have the free standing sign and two A -board signs,
and now you can find at some service stations two additional
signs stuck between the gas pumps on the islands. They are
a circular, fan -out type. Where does this type of sign fit in?
• Mr. Bonaparte: That is a good question. When I came
into this department, I was told those
were legitimate signs. Then, the
next person I talked to said, 11No, those are signs and are not
permitted." But, they are there; all of the Mobile Stations
have them.
Councilman Miller: And, they are used to advertise sales.
So, I encourage seeing if we can
broaden the use of signs for the
service stations.
Mr. Bonaparte: We have kind of steered away from this.
The entire Service Station Ordinance
was under consideration for a period
of two.years or so and we had a mor,,torium on rental aspects -
rental of trailers, etc. We still enforce the signs,,so to
speak, but, I tell you, you walk into a service station and
you need to have a flak vest on. Each service station man
tours the City and knows what each other service station man
is doing. While you talk to one about taking down a sign, the
• other man is putting his up; every day it changes.
Mr. Diaz: I might'suggest that instead of the
adjustment which I submitted to you,
that we add, "Prices of all grades of
gasoline shall be posted for all modes of service, not to
exceed 12 square feet face and a sign for each street."
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page ;Twe;l;ve
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Councilman Shearer: On one hand we say no prices on
permanent signs, and now we are
• talking about singling out one
business in our community. I do like to see the price, no
question. But, what is the basis for government stepping in
and saying, "Gas Stations, you have to post the price so that
it can be read from the street." Yet, we don't say the same
to the drive-in dairy,;about the price of milk, or McDonalds,
or any place else As far as I know, the only business in
.town that has to post a price is the gasoline station.
Chairman Bacon: I think it is the only business in
town which has this fantastic
fluctuation in price that occurs
all of the time. Milk, of course, is regulated by the State,
and therefore you cannot change the price. McDonalds does
not have different prices at the,different McDonalds, nor
does Jack -in -the -Box. One Mobile station to another will have
different prices. It tends to attract a person who has to
make an immediate decision to pull into the station or not.
It does have differences in the way it is set up as opposed
to other types of businesses.
Councilman Chappell: Plus, the service station people had
a committee through the Chamber of
• Commerce and they asked to have signs
to post the different prices.
Councilman Shearer: I am not saying the man can't. But, I
question the City singling out that
one business, and saying, "You have to
post your price."
Mr. Diaz: I think the City of Beverly Hills went
through this about the same time you
were going through it because we
revised the Sign Ordinance there in 1968; we did not permit any
price signs. The service station people ended up starving
because people would just drive down through and keep going
until they saw a price. At that time there was some competition
between gas stations with regard to price, and they really
wanted to display their price. Now, since the prices have been
changing and changing in only clone direction, they are not doing
it. Back in 1968-69 we needed to allow the stations to post
their prices so that they could compete with those stations
outside of the city. Now, we need to put the prices out to
protect the cconsumer within the city.
• Councilman Tice: Several ears ago, when we had the as
y g � g
shortage, wasn't there some talk on
either the Federal or State level about
making it mandatory to post gasoline prices?
12 -
C�
•
•
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page-Thlrte'en
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Diaz: I think that legislation died.
Councilman Shearer: The City of Los Angeles passed it.
Mayor Browne: Many of the cities of Los Angeles
County enacted that at the time.
And, even more recently they have
required posting of the prices because of the differentials
in prices.
The oil companies, right now, are
proposing gasoline sales; they are subsidizing certain stations
based upon their gallonage. They are keenly competitive, trying
to get their stations to stay open 24 hours. This would indicate',
truly that there is not a gasoline shortage. I think the require-
ment speaks today more of what Mr. Diaz was talking about - trying
to keep the business within the community, so that people will
realize that they can buy gas at a certain price without having
to drive into a neighboring city to buy it cheaper.
Councilman Shearer: I won't belabor the.point, but I do not
think it is an item for a Sign Ordinance;
I think it should be permissive. I do
not think it should be mandatory. We talk about driving in and
getting trapped. In that light, is the next step going to be
requiring restaurants to post their menus on the window? I
would be less hesitant to drive out of a gas station than I
would be to go into a restaurant, open -a menu, and then walk out.
Chairman Bacon: Some cities require that menus be posted
on the door.
Councilman Shearer: To me, I think we are going too far.
It is a great idea. If I was going to
be competitive or better than competitive,
I would want to put my gas price up. But, I do not think I would
want the City to tell me to put my price up.
Mayor Browne: Well, we could do it this way: if they
want to post a price, then they have to
post the price of all levels of gasoline,
not just one.
Councilman Shearer: That would be fine.
Councilman Chappell: And, if they don't wish to post any
price, they should take the sign down.
Councilman Shearer: That is right. They should not be able
to have another sign in lieu of the
price board. It would be optional only
for posting of gasoline prices - no prices, no sign.
Commissioner Kochis: I think that would encourage them to do it.
13
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page gF`ouk,il-, ..
Mr. Diaz: Then, apparently, we have come full -
circle. If we leave it the way it
• is now, with the exception that if
they post the price of one grade, then the price of all grades
shall be posted, and additional signs.,
Councilman Shearer: Wait a minute, that was only my comment.
I think we ought to hear from the others.
•
•
My Diaz: In addition to the two standard A -board
signs, the sign for posting prices would
be allowed.
Mayor Browne:
That is an automatically allowable sign.
Commissioner Christopher: That would accomplish what we are
talking about.
Councilman Tice: I go along with Councilman Shearer on
this.
Commissioner Kochis: I think that would settle the complaints
that Mr. Bonaparte gets when he goes into
a station.
Mr. Diaz: The way it would be is, if they put the
two price signs up, they would still
have the.two.A-boards to put something
else up. But, if they have the price
of one gasoline posted, they have to post them all.
Councilman Tice: So, you are talking about,four signs.
Would that cover the people with the
signs between the pumps?
Mr. Bonaparte: I don't know. Those are three -sided
signs.
Mayor Browne: Those are a standard sign because the
gas companies print the signs that come
out. That would be ,your standard
footage allowable, if they have two double faced signs.
Mr. Bonaparte: They have the double faced signs and
those besides, and those are triple
faced. Everyone I have talked to
swears it is part of their precise plan to.have those signs
on the islands.
- 14 -
•
JOINT MEETING �ICITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976k
PLANNING COMMISSION Page rF:f:teen'
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Diaz: Signs are not part of the precise plan.
Mr. Lange: How about posting the stop price and the
bottom price?
Councilman Shearer: Let's stop and think before we get too
far. -As someone pointed out earlier
we do have stations that have a self-
service island and a full service island. And, if they each
have three grades of gasoline, you have six prices on a sign.
And, we say each sign must have all six. Is that really what
we want? I am not sure; I just raised that as a question?..
Besides the price, each price will require a description - low
lead, regular, etc.
Mayor Browne: What most of the stations have down
in the area that I am familiar with
is, instead of having one.huge, large
sign, they split it in half - self-service on one side and
full service on the other. I't is a T-type sign and the numerals
are reduced considerably to price all six prices in the same
space that the original sign was allowed.
Councilman Shearer: With new signs, I think that can be
done well. But, take the existing
• signs, 3 x 4 feet, if a person wants
to post prices we are telling him that he has to post all six
prices and the sign was bad enough with three.
Chairman Bacon: Could we allow him to post three prices
on one side of the'sign and three on
the other side of the sign?
Mayor Browne: If you check with Mobile, Shell and
.Exxon, they are changing their whole
marketing procedure now that there
are so many self-service stations. They are even furnishing
the changeable numbers and letters for signs. I am sure that
they have a standard set because they are going up all over
the Los Angeles area.
Councilman Shearer: I guess that if we don't say it has to
all be posted on.every sign, it could
be self-service on one side of the sign
and full service on the other side of the sign.
Commissioner Christopher: It would then depend on what side of
• the street you were on whether the
prices you were interested in were
posted.
15
4F
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page<Sxteen'
Review,of the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Diaz: I think we have what you are looking
for and the Staff can sit down and
work with it.
Councilman Chappell: It is going to take some study.
Mayor Browne: I think if you check with the oil
companies, you will find that they
have changed their whole pricing and
marketing procedure in this relationship.
Councilman Tice: I think we have agreed that whatever is
done, it should be an optional type of
thing.
Councilman Miller: I think Councilman Shearer has a good
point. If we can come up with a
method that would force them into
either all or nothing, that is reasonable.
Mayor Browne: Here again, we would be compatible with
other cities. I am sure that the oil
companies would not have embarked on
this change of price .signs unless they were because they have
to have those things made up by the thousands. We would just
be doing the same thing that the other communities allow, and
• not placing an obstruction or "hiridran.ce,;'',, on those stations
within our community.
Councilman Tice: We have heard pretty much from the
Council, but what are the feelings
of the Planning Commission in this area?
Commisg.ioner Kochis: Well, I have expressed mine. I agree
with Councilman Shearer. I think that
by offering them extra signs for price
posting only, that would be one way.to encourage them to post
prices.
Chairman Bacon: I agree.
Commissioner Jordon: Yes, I agree; it should be optional.
Commissioner Christopher: I am one to one. I can see what Mr.
Lange said too; post the hlighest and
the lowest.
• Councilman Shearer: I have some questions on some other
parts, if the Staff feels they have
enough information on gas stations.
- 16 '-
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page °Sevent_eeh
Mr. Bonaparte,: I have one other problem spot - the
legal nonconforming signs. Those,
• to me, have been the biggest failure
in my limited career because we handle them through attrition.
A new owner has to meet the new sign standards, although some-
one next door is permitted to have the old signs. I guess that
is the only way to do it. Would it be _dsast"rous" to pick a
cutnaf-ff ` date?
Mr. Diaz:
A cutoff date does not work.
Mayor Browne: In 1968-69 we went through that
controversy, and all heck broke loose
in the. City..
Chairman Bacon: Arcadia just went through that, and they
were relatively successful in it. I had
a client that objected to it, so I
called the City Attorney to get his view on it. He cited me
about four cases which have been decided now. If you give a
sufficient period of time, something which would allow the
value of the sign to be reasonably amortized, the Superior
Court will uphold the City's position. Those cases have all
been decided since about 1968. Back at that time there was
a big question about whether it would be lawful to impose a
• cutoff date, but I don't believe that is a question today.
Mayor Browne: Going back to that point in time, I
think there were some signs in the
City where the owner had a considerable
investment - up to $5,000 or $6,000, and the signs had only been
up for a year. Well, they have to have an amortization period
to write those signs off. That was the big flak then.
Chairman Bacon:4 Those statutes that were adopted were
figured on the year that the sign
was put up, so as to amortize the signs
on an individual basis as opposed to an absolute basis for all
signs. That way they overcame the amortization complaints.
They took IRS charts to determine the amortization periods.
Councilman Chappell: We have redevelopment areas. We are
in the process of redeveloping down
the line. To start messing with those
signs would really not be fair. That is, basically, why we
pulled off of it in the last few years. Most of the areasthat
have nonconforming signs are in redevelopment. If we start
• going in and making people take down old signs and put up new
ones at this point, we are not really doing the job, in my'mind,
that we are supposed to be doing here.
- 17 -
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page EEzglteeri° ,,:
We are doing it when a business changes
hands. I think that is right because slowly but surely, with
• very few exceptions as you look into the future, those tenants
are moving out.and new ones moving in. I think.that is the
.only fair way you can go.
Councilman Shearer: I agree -with Councilman Chappell. I
would not want to get into a situation
where we had any kind of an amortization
period, even if it was based on when the sign went in. I think
you would have difficulty trying to trace back when some signs
were put up. I would prefer to leave it as it is, that the
sign be changed when,the business changes hands. That is like
everything else that we have that has to be brought up to Code.
It is a consideration that the new tenant should take into
consideration when he offers his price for the business, or
the building.
Mayor Browne: They can all be handled on an individual
basis. Lam sure that we have all
r-. received calls from people objecting
to this. But, when you talk to them, they usually realize
what.we are trying to do and goialong with it.
Mr. Bonaparte: Well, usually, yes.
• Councilman Shearer:; I believe Mr. Diaz talked about the
variance versus some sort of administra-
tive.review. I would like to give'my
feelings on that.
I would not object if some sort of
a system or procedure were set up for granting of the exception
of a variance that would eliminate this business of the four
items having to be met. I have had difficulty at times when
I felt that perhaps there was a legitimate reason, but it was
not one of these four, or not all four were met. It might
have been something that I really wanted to do, but I had to
stretch in my rand to make it even Half -way legal.
I would not want to see us appoint
a separate five member board. Perhaps the Council could sit
as that review board. We would still be the ones to get the
final flak or otherwise, but we would not have to prove these
four items to everybody's satisfaction.
So, I personally would be in favor
of that,to eliminate every itemrom.being a variance,.`situation.
Mayor Browne: Would you want guidelines spelled out
on that?
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page Niriete.ene-e-
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Councilman Shearer: Yes, I think there should be a maximum
amount. I think Mr. Diaz mentioned
• 20 percent, and, I think it shouldn't
be 20 percent of every item either.,- 20 percent of height, 20
percent of width, etc. It should be, maybe, one item 20 percent,
or two items.
Mayor Browne: But, you would have to have guidelines
of the overall determination of the
maximum 20 percent..
Councilman Shearer: Oh yes. And, Staff would have to know
very positively whether the item would
come under the variance procedure or
a slight modification, or this procedure.
Mayor Browne: Within house, too, they would have to
have their own guidelines set so that
no matter who was working the counter,
they would come up with the same answer as any other person
would. These are the things that we are trying to overcome
because there are different interpretations of these things.
Councilman Shearer: Yes, we would have to be very specific
to avoid that.
• Chairman Bacon:. You would want to have some sort of
criteria there, that something unusual
has to be shown, or you will end up
with a side door - you will get whatever you want plus 20 percent
because there are no grounds for denying it.
Councilman Shearer: That might be a problem.
Chairman Bacon: You see, you have to have somewhere
between vaiance and this manner.
What about something where Staff has
the power to act on slight modifications, whereby it is because
of particular circumstances, something like that. It would be
a Slight Modification Committee similar to the one that we have
for other items now. Their action could be appealed to the City
Council, but you would not have the same criteria as you have
for variances.
Mayor Browne: There are some factors where only five
percent is involved. That could very
• easily be determined by Staff in a
type of Slight Modification Committee. Are there three members
that meet on the Slight Modification Committee that we have?
0
JOINTT,:MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the.Sign Ordinance
May.3, 1976
Page -Twenty` ,.
Mr. Diaz: Yes, the Public Services Director,
the Planning Director and the Building
Director. The showings that have to
be made before a Slight Modification Committee are still
variances, so we would have to alter.
Chairman Bacon: I am not saying so much what they have
to show. I am opposed to the fact that
for a slight modification, they have
to go through the whole variance procedure. I think we should
have something to allow for that sort of thing.
Mayor Browne: Yes, that.'is costly and time consumming
for both the applicant and the City.
Mr. Diaz: I think we could work out two or three
alternatives, utilizing the Council,
utilizing the -Slight Modification,
whatever.
Mayor Browne: Ok. You can proceed in that direction
then.
Councilman Shearer: Under "Painted Signs," it indicates,
'.'Painted signs on the.walls of buildings
are prohibited in.all zones." I assume
that is aesthetics.
Mr. Diaz:.Yes.
Councilman Shearer: In this case, I recall the Tune -Up
Shop, Texaco Station down Vine and
Glendora. As I.remember it, it was
painted and it had like stripes going out from the sign in
different colors'. It is definite where the sign is, and -then
the flashes go out from it. Is that legal? I mean, could I
put.my,.-sign out legally, and then paint my building around
the sign in these flashy colors? Is that part of the sign
when obviously it is trying to direct your attention to the
sign?
Mr. Bonaparte:' I don't know. The signs are legal,
but.as far as painting the bu'lding...
Mr. Diaz: We do not control the painting of
buildings.
Councilman Shearer: But, where does the sign stop when all
of these stripes are around it? . -
- 20 -
i
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page^,Twen'ty-one
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Diaz: The stripes are not attached to the
sign, though.
•
Councilman Shearer:
No. It is how the building
is painted.
Mr. Diaz:
If we were to approach the
individual,'
'
he would say that the sign
is legal",
and obviously the stripes are
not
attached to the sign. I
am not trying to be a smart
alec,,but
this is the answer that
we would get.
Councilman Shearer:
Maybe there is nothing we can
do, just
hope for the good taste of
the majority
of business people.
Commissioner Jordon:
Don't we'have some type of
regulation
for that, compatibility or
something:
Mr. Diaz:,
You do in the redevelopment
area.
•
Councilman Shearer: Maybe it is an item that if you leave
it alone, it will go away, and if you
talk about it, it will get worse.
Councilman Shearer:. What is the concept behind the minimum
square footage in the table under
section 10602.01 (Front Signs)?
Mr. Diaz: This is the way it is written in the
current Ordinance. Minimum is the
minimum permitted, irregardless of size,
i.e, if you have a frontage of ten square feet in the R-C Zone,
you would normally be allowed a maximum of 30 square feet or
a minimum ...
Councilman Shearer: Ok. I misunderstood that.
Now, "section 10602.18 - Banners and Pennants.
If I read this correctly, banners and pennants would only be allowed
upon the opening of a business. I thought we had something about
automobile agencies.
Mr. Lange: Right now it is half and half, but the
later Ordinances were written under just
the opening.
Councilman Shearer: Yes, but what is being proposed here is
what? -
Mr. Lange: It agrees with the later Ordinances that
were written, R-C. S-C, etc. Whereas
the older Ordinances, M-1, C-2 and C-3
had them for special events. Both of them were without words.
- 21 -
.V mow'
r�
U
JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Review of the Sign Ordinance
May 3, 1976
Page Twenty-two
Councilman Shearer: In the proposed Ordinance, though, it
is limited to the opening of a business.
Mr. Diaz: Yes.
Councilman Shearer: As I recall, it was a Plymouth Dealership,
a change of owners or a new model sale
or something, that requested banners or
pennants and the Council said, "ok."
Mr. Miller: You have Toyota and Datsun doing that
now anyway.
(After discussion, it was determined
that the little flags, banners or pennants attached to the top
of a pole are of a different consideration than those looped
around a business attached to a string.)The Ordinance pertains
to those banners or pennants attached to a string.)
Councilman Chappell: I would like to leave it the way we
had it the last time we made the
decision. It made everybody happy;
it wasn't overdone; it hasn't been spoiled; it hasn't been
taken advantage of. I think we should just leave it like that.
Councilman Tice: I think we should leave it this way.
I have not seen abuse of it in the City.
Councilman Shearer: I think we should, at this time, clarify
this and be specific. If we are going to
recognize the right for anything, now
is the time to put it in.
Chairman Bacon: Can we arrive at some compromise on
this such as to where you would allow
some flags or pennants for dealerships,
but not get to the point of overall coverage - thousands of
flapping pennants?
an Ordinance which
obtaining a waiver.
Mayor Browne:
Or, the other thing would be to have
prohibits them, and then it goes back to
you would have control on
You could eliminate the purpose of
advertising the original opening of
a business, and make it open. Then
it on a 30 day period.
- 22 -
�J
•
JOINT MEETING -CITY COUNCIL May 3, 197.6
PLANNING COMMISSION Page.Twenty- three
Review of the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Diaz: Apparently, the pennants that we have
in the City now are satisfactory.
Councilman Chappell: That is what we authorized. We did
not authorize those little blue flags
that hang 50 or 60 on a string. We
authorized some sort of a little flag thing on top of a pole
and that was all we'authorized,for automobile dealers.
Mr. Miller: What you are saying, then, is that the
pennants that are strung are illegal;
the pennant or little flag on the top
of a pole is legal.
Councilman Chappell: That is right.
Commissioner Jordon: And, the kind that hang from a string
are allowed for an opening for 30 days
only.
Mayor Browne: Right.
(Everyone concurred with that.)
Mayor Browne: Does that complete what you need from
its? -
Mr. Diaz: I think it has given us the direction to
go.
Commissioner Kochis: I notice that we are using a different
yardstick for measuring square footage
in the PAR Zone. We are using square
footage of site area instead of running square footage. Of
course, that breaks up the table, and I wonder if it is going
to be expanded in the future. Why did we do that?
Mr. Diaz: The PAR Zone was really a separate
animal created solely out of the Merced -
Orange Plan. We are talking there about
industrial park type development, and the Sign Ordinance for it
is based -out of necessity. Itthas to be different because of
the type of development that we anticipate in there. Not all
buildings in an industrial park would have direct street
frontage, etc. So, we would propose leaving the PAR Zone as
we have it here because it all works together.
Councilman Shearer: At various times over the past years,
there has been talk about making a
differential between businesses that
are highway -oriented and those that are not. Has that been
addressed at all, or do we not want to bring it up?
M M
JOINT MEETING --CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1976
PLANNING COMMISSION Page Twenty- o.u•r`_
.Review of .the'Sign Ordinance
Mr..Diaz: That has not been addressed. I do not
feel'--that-the Ordinance that you have
• here really penalizes businesses that
are highway or freeway oriented. Most of the time cities say,
"Businesses so many feet away from the freeway..." then they
are given more signs, higher bonuses, etc. For'the most part,
the businesses that we have along the freeway now are covered
in•redevelopment project areas. We are trying to be more
-restrictive in the quality of sign that we have. I do not think
we need to -differentiate here between the two.
A T% T/NTTT T.TAXTTTTM -
PLANNING COMMISSION Motion made by Commissioner Kochis,
seconded by Commissioner Jordon to
adjourn the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
until May 5, 1976 at 7:30 P.M.
Motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL Motion made by Councilman Tice, seconded
by Councilman Chappell to adjourn the
meeting at�7:00 P.M. until May 5, 1976,
7:;4'5 A.M. at Cocos Restaurant. Motion
carried.
• APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•
24 -