Councilmembers Reyes & Weiss are hoping that the Planning Commission will have in their hands by January 2009 an updated and comprehensive sign ordinance. In essence, Weiss feels that the current emphasis on the ICO is distracting and instead desires more acute and quicker focus on a new comprehensive sign ordinance.
Additionally, Weiss reprimanded the City Attorney's Office and LADBS, to some extent, for not seeing eye to eye with current California Law with regards to credits issued for conversion to Digital Signage. Weiss believes that CEQA trumps the settlement agreements, and that any permit to digital conversion should and must comply with any & all City and State Law's, especially CEQA. The City Attorney present at PLUM then made the strange remark that perhaps the 1st Amendment may perhaps trump CEQA - to which Weiss scoffed.
It is LADBS interpretation (from the legal settlements) that it is clear zoning enforcement DOES NOT apply when approving a permit for a digital conversion. This goes against Weiss' interpretation.
As to certain existing code interpretations that regulate light intensity (especially with digital conversions), Reyes would like to City revisit those standards and create an updated appendix delineating new standards of regulating the amount of light - especially as it applies to new technologies. The existing standards of 'light' regulation were established long before the current technologies came into play.
Alan Bell commented that he thought for the new ordinance it was unnecessary to continue to differentiate between off-site signage, on-site-signage and supergraphics.
The new sign ordinance, as explained by Alan Bell, will hopefully regulate the following:
1. Total Area of signage allowed per lot or parcel
2. Sign Illumination
3. Level of Intensity
4. Height of signs in relationship to the height of buildings in that district
5. The structures that hold signs
6. The placement, the orientation
7. message duration/ transition of one image to the next
8. 'Hours of Operation' - time regulations
Bell emphasized the need for the new ordinance to be "CONTENT NEUTRAL" and to regulate "TIME, PLACE & MANNER".
He also explained the status of all the varying motions pertaining to signs that are currently pending:
1. The motion to establish clear criteria for what constitutes a SIGN DISTRICT with emphasis on the historic, cultural or entertainment characteristics of an area
2. The motion to regulate signage in Agriculture & Residential Zones - to institute time/place/manner restrictions and to remove 'content' based regulations
3. The motion to distinguish FINE ART MURALS. The DCP issues a report proposing the establishment of a PUBLIC ART EASEMENT policy, such as constituted in Portland, Oregon - which in essence would allow a private property owner to donate to the City a public art easement, which the City can regulate through its public art programs - and therefore establishes a mechanism for which murals can be evaluated separate from its sign ordinance.
4. The current ICO adopted by the Planning Commission, which would ban all new signs for 6 months. This ICO will be at PLUM on December 9th.
As I noted before, Weiss feels that emphasis on the ICO is contentious and instead encourages DCP to quicken the pace of drafting the new City's Sign Ordinance.
____________________________________
Will Wright, Director of Government & Public Affairs
American Institute of Architects / Los Angeles
3780 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 639-0777 phone | (213)639-0767 fax
ΓΌ Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Dear Councilman Weiss,
ReplyDeleteI am very concerned that in your rush to adopt a revised sign ordinance, as exemplified in discussions at the PLUM toady, that major loop holes will be left open, that public debate will be unnecessarily stunted, and that the fundamental goal, to limit off-site signs in a defensible manner, will once again be lost, further compromising Los Angeles' ability to properly regulate these signs. This can only lead to further degradation of our civic environment.
During the hearing today it was mentioned that off-site signs may be classified as similar to on-site signs. My question is simple. Will this type of merging of definitions not in fact make all present signs equal and hence inadvertently legalize the permanent status of all off-site signs, a sign-type the City has already banned? This would be an environmental disaster. Plus, when the City Attorney's office is incapable of distinguishing between commercial speech which can be regulated and free speech which is constitutionally protected, as stated by the City Attorney in your hearing today, it demonstrates to me at least that our City staff is so far from having common definitions agreed upon that our City can not possibly hope to have a sensible regulation by the end of January.
This issue demands a pause. I implore you to take a breath and support a six month to one year ICO to allow these issues and well crafted agreements to be worked out in a substantive way. Please do not facilitate another band-aid sign solution that our City can ill-afford. Support an off-site signage ICO that allows for a broad spectrum of public, City staff and decision-maker input and debate.
Thank you for your consideration and,
Best regards,
John Kaliski, AIA
Principal
URBAN STUDIO
3921 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90010
w 213.383.7980
f 213.383.7981