1. Determine the most appropriate permit fees to erect signs
2. Substantially increase the fines on illegal signs
3. Highly emphasize the importance of enforcement and collaborate with LADBS to determine best practices; Commissioner Fr. Spencer T. Kezios consented that the sign ordinance "isn't worth the paper its printed on, unless it can be enforced", i.e., LADBS admitted that the primary weakness of the current sign ordinance is that it cannot be adequately enforced by the Department.
4. Further delineate a public art/ mural classification within the sign ordinance, and expand proposed the 100 sq. ft allowable area for murals.
Double-check for unintended consequences to make certain that the revised code doesn't undermine downtown high-rise tenant ID, way-finding and environmental graphics signage programs.
5. Provide more visual examples of what signs would and would not be allowed under the new ordinance
6. Justify and/or explain where they are coming up with some of their determinations, such as the 35 foot height limit
7. Michael Woo reiterated AIA/LA's public testimony to convene a panel of design experts. (However, Gail Goldberg's response to this was that the Department was under a strict deadline determined by the Council and would need to have the 2nd draft of the revised sign ordinance in front of the Planning Commission by February 19th, and to PLUM and to City Council prior to the end of the 3 month ICO, which began in late December 2008.
8. M. Woo reminded the Commission that "signage is an enemy of good architecture" and responded to many of the economic concerns the room that feared businesses would not be able to strengthen their identity in the City without abundant signage by reminding them that we should stand up for local standards that mean something and rely on the unique architecture of a building to capture attention and to express the identity of a tenant citing the iconic example of the Transamerica building in San Francisco.
Other relevant comments by either Planning Staff, LADBS and/or City Attorney (during the hearing)
1. The City Attorney reported that City of LA will be looking to advocate at the State level to bring back an amortization program
2. LADBS reported that they only have 3 people on staff to enforce the City Sign Ordinance and that they have 3 more additional staff dedicated to completing the inventory of legal & illegal signs over the next three years. M. Woo suggested that higher fines for illegal signs could pay for additional staff to do a more adequate job at enforcement.
3. LADBS is the primary proponent for eliminating the distinction between on-site and off-site, claiming that they often lack the ability to judge a distinction and cited numerous examples, such as an iPod sign at a gas station where in fact brochures for iPods were available.
4. In response to Dennis Hathaway's concern that eliminating the distinction of on-site and off-site would further expand the canvas available for the commercialization of signs, M. Woo questions the Planning Department on the fact that the only way to mitigate this concern is if the new sign ordinance was actually more restrictive on the area of signage allowed, and that if it wasn't more restrictive on the area allowed, then Hathaway's concern was indeed justified because the unintended consequence of eliminating the distinction would be to see more off-site signs and fewer tenant identification signs, further commercializing the public realm.
5. LADBS admitted that it did not have clear guidelines for enforcement, including no clear timeline for when an illegal sign must be removed.
6. City Attorney noted that the City does indeed have the legal authority, as a matter or establishing policy, to either have a sign ordinance that does distinguish between off-site and on-site sign, or likewise may eliminate that distinction if so desired. Portland is the only sizable City that does not distinguish b/w off and on-site and since they have more restrictive area allowed for signage, not inundated with commercial messages.
With regards to Public Testimony, here are the highlights:
1. Councilmember Jack Weiss thanked the Department for expediting a quick first draft, which could be further shaped by public comment. He recognized that cumulation of perspectives would help strengthen the ordinance. He emphasized that the following details need to be approved:
a. Weiss feels the off-site/on-site distinction should be maintained (not eliminated)
b. Weiss wants the penalties & enforcement guidelines to be explicit in the sign ordinance instead of just in the municipal code
c. Weiss wants the fines increased and reminded the Department that at present "Crime Pays!", that it is presently the fines are lower than the amount of income earned from the illegal signs
d. Weiss instructed the Department to review City of San Jose policy, which allows neighbors within 600 feet of illegal signs to sue for damages
2. Quite a few public testimonials dealt with the definition of a sign district: some felt 10,000 linear feet was too much, or that 5 separate owners was too much (especially since a single large-scale property owner might own much of the land); others felt that with regards to Sign Districts, The designation of Regional Centers should not override Specific Plans. Also, certain people requested for additional provisions that would enable/regulate the annexation of space to enlarge current & pending sign districts.
3. Retail signage programs: if signs are too small, difficult to find businesses - resulting in CEQA concerns due to increased circulation traffic
4. Do not limit murals to 100 square feet. make it easier, not harder, for mom & pop stores to establish a connection with area youth groups engaged in creating art on the walls of a small grocer, for instance.
5. Pat Gomez of the Cultural Affairs Department explicitly requests to work with the Planning Department to promote public art, especially since often new forms of public art do indeed use digital media.
6. Sign Contractors testified that lack of enforcement is the primary problem.
7. A representative from Westfield cautioned that the new sign limits would not be effective for tenants.
8. A representative from Brookfield Properties cautioned against restrictive sign regulations, citing the greater need for corporate identity signs and the economic benefits that results from easily identifiable businesses.
9. A representative from the CIM GROUP reminded the commission that to certain large-scale development projects, off-site signage programs are an integral design element and a key economic developer.
10. Several developers argued in favor of their sign districts that had already been publicly vetted and requested for their sign districts to be 'grandfathered' into the ordinance.
11. A rep. from the California Sign Association cited that it is absurd to link more regulation to a decrease in the proliferation of illegal signs, and cautioned towards the opposite to be true - that the more restrictive the regulations, the more illegal, non-complying signs you'd see. He favorable fair and balanced regulation.
12. Several members of the community cautioned the Planning Department to be certain to factor in key economic factors effected by the sign code, such as retail identification and revenue streams from both the advertising and the fact that small businesses often depend on billboards to promote their goods/services.
13. Vanessa Rodriguez from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce testified to the Commission that outdoor advertising drives sales and promotes local businesses. She reminded the Commission that there is no cost-effective media substitute and that billboards play an important role in the economic development of our City and encourage small business growth.
14. Pacoima, CA constituents argues in favored of the big-box retail development occurring in their vicinity as a key driver in the economic recovery of their neighborhood and recognized signage as a critical & necessary component to the success of that big-box retail development.
15. Several representatives from Neighborhood Councils argued in favor of a more restrictive sign ordinance and expressed key examples of how proliferation of signs/ commercial messages denigrates their neighborhoods, the public realm and contributes to the visual blight of their communities.
16. A representative from Van Wagner Media offered their resources to help identify illegal signs and advocated for a better way to enforce the existing regulations with higher penalties. He also encouraged the City to use their ZIMAS website to locate signs. 17. Veronica Perez-Becker from the Central City Association encouraged the Commission to slow the revision process down, gather additional input from the business community and the community-at-large, enforce the existing rules, level the playing field and to recognize that for a City as diverse and as large as Los Angeles that one size does not fit all. She also reminded the Commission about the potential negative impacts and unintended consequences the revised sign ordinance could have on our treasured cultural institutions. Lastly, she cautioned the commission on what message this new ordinance would send to businesses, especially at a time when it was important for Los Angeles to attract more businesses to locate here and the importance of the City to be perceived as business-friendly.
