Signs

0

By DAN TURNER and FRANK SWERTLOW

Staff Reporters

Next month, business owners in Santa Monica are going to get letters from the city that many of them aren’t expecting and that they won’t like one bit.

Fourteen years ago, in March 1985, the city passed an ordinance that severely restricts the kinds of signs business owners are allowed to post.

To give them time to comply, the ordinance was not slated to go into effect until 15 years and 30 days had passed. Which means that on April 12, 2000, a wide range of business signs and all billboards within the city limits are going to have to come down.

That means all free-standing signs mounted in the ground, all roof-mounted signs, all signs posted between a building’s second floor and its roof, and all signs that project out from a building. In addition, all signs advertising a business that aren’t posted on a company’s premises in other words, billboards will have to go.

The city recently commissioned a consulting firm to take pictures of business fronts. Out of 1,718 businesses in the inventory, 825 had non-conforming signs. All of those business owners are getting a letter from the city saying they have a year to take down their offending advertisements, according to David Martin, a Santa Monica senior planner.

But they won’t go down without a fight, especially the billboards. Many Santa Monica business owners are unaware that the ordinance even exists as are the outdoor media companies operating there. Ed Dato, a spokesman for Eller Media, which has several billboards in Santa Monica, had never heard of the ordinance before being informed by a reporter.

“In order to take them down, the city would have to buy, at market value, all our structures,” Dato said.

But Deputy City Attorney Barry Rosenbaum disagrees. He says there may be instances in which signs will be torn down at city expense, but Santa Monica will then bill the sign’s owner. Legally, he said there is no obligation for the city to buy billboards from outdoor media companies like Eller.

Violators of the ordinance could be liable to criminal prosecution, Rosenbaum said.

The only non-conforming signs not affected are those considered historical or that have some unique value. The city is currently drafting criteria for such exemptions, as well as an appeal process.

Santa Monica follows Beverly Hills in establishing tough laws against signage, which is considered visual blight by opponents.

“We wanted to clear up the clutter of bad signs,” said architect James Mount, a member of the original architectural review board that drafted the ordinance in the 1970s.

Since 1985, he said, all new businesses have complied with the ordinance. “The (newer signs) are small and in good taste,” he said. “They should not have to compete with big signs that are in bad taste.”

Among the businesses most affected would be fast-food stands like the Arby’s on Lincoln Boulevard. The Norm’s restaurant, also on Lincoln, probably would be exempt, Mount said, because it is considered a “classic.”

Mount anticipates much grumbling among business owners. “When they’re told they can’t have their signs, they get very upset,” he said. “It’s kind of a lifeline for some merchants.”

Like many business people, Aleta Parrish, the owner of The Victorian, a special events facility on Main Street, was unaware of the new law. She has a sign posted to a city light pole that’s in front of the Victorian building, which was built in 1893 and which houses her firm. Although not designated a landmark, as yet, the building is considered historical, she said. At this point, she doesn’t know what her next step will be or whether her sign conforms to the new law.

A spokeswoman for Volkswagen of Santa Monica, on auto row along Santa Monica Boulevard, said her large “lollipop” sign probably will not be exempt even though it has been up since 1964. Her company considers it a “landmark,” but the city doesn’t.

“They think our lollipop is unsightly,” she said.

She anticipated that removing the sign would affect business, and many car dealerships will try to block the law.

“The city forgets how much revenue we (car dealers) bring to the city,” she said. “It’s 1 percent of every car sold. That’s a lot of money.”

No posts to display