Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\UA-~ <br /> <br />40% of sign violations are located along Redwood City's major traffic corridors; EI Camino <br />Real, Woodside Road, and Veterans Boulevard. Also, the survey records show that <br />approximately 35% of recorded sites with violations include a temporary sign violation <br />(banner or window sign). The inventory also confirms that over 30% of all businesses in <br />Redwood City have an excessive amount of signage, either on their façade, their windows, or <br />on-site. <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. b) <br />The City Council, the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Committee and the <br />Sign Ordinance Focus Group have already comprehensively reviewed and approved the <br />Amortization Measures in the current Sign Ordinance. Significant changes to these <br />measures could not only affect the integrity of the Sign Ordinance but impact its <br />effectiveness. <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. c) <br />By determining that Amortization Measures are not needed, the Council would in effect <br />remove all of the "teeth" in the Sign Ordinance. Since only new signs would fall under the <br />new law, the anticipated physical improvements to the City (resulting from the progressive <br />removal of non-conforming signs) would not occur as anticipated. <br /> <br />Discussion of Recommendations/Alternatives <br />Recommendation 1j <br />The public hearing has been scheduled and all business owners and property owners of <br />such businesses have been notified. In addition, a public information brochure has been <br />sent out and a "Sign Information Hot Line" set up. Free copies of the Sign Ordinance are <br />also available to the public. <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. a) <br />Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the amortization section of the sign ordinance <br />as originally adopted. As a reminder, the subject ordinance which was approved in June <br />1999, comes as a recommendation from the Architectural Review Committee, the Planning <br />Commission and the Sign Ordinance Focus Group. Also, after an extensive analysis, these <br />regulations were determined to be in balance and "fair" with respect to other sign regulations <br />from other municipalities. Also, the amortization provisions were crafted to respond to the <br />relative value of each type of sign, (for example, a pole sign could be amortized over seven <br />years while (the value of) a temporary sign could be amortized over 90-days). <br /> <br />.Recommendat!on 2. ~ <br />In this alternative, the City Council may choose to modify the section which would essentially <br />change the amortization schedule, presumably lengthening the time for businesses to comply <br />with the ordinance (for example, a 10-year amortization period could be allowed for a non- <br />conforming pole sign versus the recommended seven years). The Council could also <br />strengthen or weaken the provisions which address the level of change allowed for <br />nonconforming signs, for example, by relaxing the regulations of how signs could be restored <br />or how much of their percentage of value could be altered without triggering a permit (see <br />section 3.130 a. & b.). <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. c) <br />The most radical action that the City Council could take would be to conclude that no <br />amortization provisions are needed for nonconforming signs. In such case, only new and <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />'r - <br />