Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1973/12/13 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR HEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday Sign Ordinanee December 13, 1973 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was held on the above date begin- ning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Planning Peterson, Associate Planner Lee and Assistant Planner Liuag CO~4ENTS BY CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Lindberg stated this meeting was to be an informal one with free exchange between the Council, the Planning Department and members of the business community. He cited a paper written by the City Attorney of Redwood City about ten years ago which discussed the problems of amortization periods and reasonable time regulations in eliminating non-conforming signs. Mr. Lindberg added that the State Court has upheld amortization provisions as being legitimate exercises of power and the Court now recognizes the right of municipalities to reasonably exercise the power to eliminate non-conforming signs within a relatively short amortization period (maximum of less than three years and, in terms of flashing moving signs, thirty days or less). These provisions have been cleared by the State Court and the Federal Circuit Court. (~. Lindberg left the meeting at this time.) Slide presentation Associate Planner Lee presented slides showing the various signs throughout the City. A question and answer period ensued during the slide presentation by members of the audience and ~r. Lee. Recess A recess was called at 8:47 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Herbert Kuhlken, General Manager Mr. Kuhlken stated he was speaking for both Fuller Ford Company the Chamber of Commerce and the Broadway Association. He read a statement whereby the Chamber of Commerce feels the ordinance, as proposed, is too restrictive and a more moderate version should be adopted. The Chamber added that the sign ordinance should protect thc visual component of the property iight of the businessmen to the maximum for e~eh site in a zone which is needed to com- municate a good product or service without going beyond the realm of reasonable use or infringement on the property rights of others. Adjourned Regular Heeting 2 December 13, 1973 The business community would like the Council to direct the Planning staff to meet with representatives of the business community and the public to develop an ordinance ~ha~ is compatible to both the City and the business community and members of the ~ public. Mr. Kuhlken stated that they are requesting the f~llowing: 1. Fifty-foot height and three-hundred square feet of sign area; 2. Flashing, animated and moving signs. Mr. Kuhlken commented that the Council should get a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the outright prohibition of these signs. 3. The section on the aesthetics of sign design and colors should be deleted. The Planning Department is being askod to make a decision on the style, color and shape of 3 sign when they do not have the training or experience in this field. 4. Regarding the abatement of the signs, theywould ask that a Grandfather Clause be put in as they feel this is the only "compromising position the City and the business community can accept." Fran Burger Mr. Burger commented on the Handyman and Pacific Sign Company Berseryland signs under discussion. He asked that the discretionary powers of the staff be 8ele~ed from the ordinance. Mayor's comments Mayor Hamilton informed the audience that the Council eliminated the discretionary powers of the staff in the new proposed ordinance and set standards for all signs so that each and every businessman would be well aware of the regulations. However, the regulations are policy, and any time a businessman feels he needs a ~igger or higher sign, he has the prerogative to come to the City Council on an appeal. If, however, the difference is based on the dis- cretionary powers of the staff in the existing ordinance, the businessman then has the right to come right to the Council -- no appeal process necessary. Jerry Prior, Owner Mr. Prior objected to the statement in the Bar-be-que Pit proposed sign ordinance under "Other Regul3tions" which stated that ~ll signs~ are subject to the regulations of Section 33.950 D and to the standards of Section 33.950 E. In addition all signs are also subject to the provisions of the currently adopted Sign Policy of Chula Vista. He declared that the tighter the restrictions, the more variances the City will have. Adjourned Regular Meeting 3 December 13, 1973 Art Schuller, Realtor Mr. Schuller explained that he is in a Third Avenue C-O zone. He has a freestanding sign, but must compete with the businesses across the way that are in the C-C and C-D zones. He asked that Council consideration be given to allowing the C-O zones to keep their freestanding signs. Clint Mathews, Co-owner Mr. ~athews noted the frontage of his property Cavalier Motel and the depth, and that his signage is E Street restricted to just the frontage. He asked that consideration be given to basing the signage allowed on the depth of the property also. Mr. Mathews also asked that the small shopping center be given further consideration to having more than just the five signs allowed, as in some cases, centers will have six or more stores. Colors of signs Mr. Burger remarked that limiting the signs to four colors was "ridiculous" and this should be modified. James R. Kilker, Attorney Mr. Kilker stated he is representing the 815 Third Avenue, Suite 105 Third Avenue Office Building. He asked Chula Vista that the City Attorney be directed to write a legal opinion as it pertains to the First Amendment rights. In all the legal opinions he has r~ad, the basic assumption is that everyone has First Amendment rights. The burden is on those who want to restrict it to show the reasonableness of the re- striction. If there is an ordinance with a fifty-foot height limitation, that should be fulfilled unless the Planning Commission has the burden of getting a variance to state that they cannot be under or be over thirty-five feet, for example. Mr. Kilker felt that in a variance procedure, it should be the Planning Commission who must get an exception to the fifty-foot rule rather than the businessman. The Council asked Mr. Kilker to state his objections in writing and these will be forwarded to the City Attorney. Nick Slijk, Executive Vice President Mr. Slijk noted that one cannot legislate Chamber of Commerce good taste and aesthetics change. !~at is acceptable today might not be acceptable tomorrow; therefore, the provision leaving the aesthetics of sign design and color to the staff should be modified. As to amortization of the signs, he asked that the Council give serious thought to this. The businessmen put up their signs when they were legal and now must take them down because they are illegal. Mr. Slijk commented that this might be legally right, but not morally. The businessman wants to feel that this investment is safe in this community. Adj ou~ned Regular Meefing 4 December 13, 1973 Underground Utilities Areas The Council discussed the areas where the fitilities have been undergrounded, noting that the existing signs will be more readily seen. Councilman Scott wondered if a separate sign ordinance should be considered for these undergrounded utility areas. ADJOURNmeNT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 18, 1973 at 7:00 p.m. ~ity' Clerk