Sign Law Back For Repairs
Valencia Valley just might be saved from the chaotic mess of signs and billboards scattered along every roadway.
The Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing Wednesday on a proposed revision to the billboard and sign ordinance. The Commission was over whelmed by such an onrush of anti-sign speakers that the astonished members decided to send the entire proposal back to the drawing board.
The revised ordinance “was found to be “inadequate and unclear” by the commission. The attacking coalition was composed not of emotional nature lovers, but highly, educated professionals.
Included in the coalition were architects, designers, ecologists, city planners, and civic leaders.
Their weaponry included a colorful motion picture, and carefully thought out factual arguments with professional recommendations.
The Commission voted to appoint a special commission to study the use of signs and billboards. They will then work with the Planning Commission staff to develop a more in-depth ordinance.
The special commission will be composed of private citizens educated in the fields of design, architecture, city planning and ecology.
Most of the speakers found the idea of the 66-page revision commendable, but only “scratching the surface” of the sign world.
A.F. Davis, a member of the Planning Commission of Rolling Hills Estates, said the ordinance does not “protect the unincorporated areas from the proliferation of signs.”
Raymond Page, a member of the Executive Board of the California Roadside Council, said the ordinance is weak and needs further study.
Several speakers, including City Councilman Marvin Braude, complained of the conditional use permit which would allow billboards on scenic highways and freeways.
Braude said on-site signs (those identifying businesses) and directional signs are needed. But he questioned the importance of off -site signs along the roads that carry such messages as “Go to Las Vegas.”
Several other speakers complained that the off-site signs have no relation to the environment in which they are located. Burton E. Jones, representing Los Angeles Beautiful, complained that the ordinance did not differentiate between on-site and off-site signs.
Albert Lerch, of the Sierra Club, said the ordinance fails to define its purpose. He said there are no restrictions on sign content. And, most restrictions can be ignored with obtaining a conditional use permit.
He suggested that the Commission consult with experts in the planning field, outside of the county office.
Robert Barnett, representing the Southern California Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, offered recommendations. He suggested a moratorium on constructing billboards should be put into effect until the final ordinance is drawn up.
He suggested that a committee be formed to study the signs in the county. “The billboard is the only medium that cannot be controlled by the individual.”
He explained that an individual can turn a radio or television off, but he cannot close his eyes to the onrush of billboards. “Billboards should be abolished.”
A representative from the American Institute of Planners agreed with Harnett’s suggestions.
Corky Wells of the California Electrical Sign Association claimed the ordinance is too confining. He made a plea to the Commission on behalf of the electric sign companies with a colorful slide show.
A businessman from Agoura cried for “businessmen whose lives depend on billboards,” and asked to keep billboards up on the highways.
The American Society of Landscape Architects sponsored a film on the book “Street Graphics.” The film offered serious alternatives to the chaotic signs and billboards.
(Commissioner Alfred) Paonessa thanked Sierra Club member Lerch, who showed the film, but said the Commission would have to do its own study.
The meeting was adjourned by Paonessa before everyone received a chance to speak. Those who did not speak, however, will still have a chance to be heard at another meeting, Paonessa said.