Hundreds Argue New Sign Law

Billboards received three hours of undivided attention of the Board of Supervisors at the public hearing on the proposed new off-site sign ordinance yesterday.

Some 700 people crowded into the usually quiet hearing room armed with multi-colored’ signs. Three Gray Line chartered bus loads of “billboard people” arrived to oppose the more stringent ordinance.

Signs of “save our jobs” were held high, making the board room look as if it contained a campaign crowd. One pregnant woman marched along the aisle with a sign reading “Stop this optical pollution.” Planning staff member Robert Kinkead explained the essence of the proposed ordinance to the Board.

The ordinance, if adopted, would eliminate billboards within 660 feet of freeways and scenic highways. It would limit the maximum height to 30 feet. It would eliminate billboards from rooftops.

Spacing would be lengthened between signs, cutting down the number of billboards in any given area. It would eliminate the billboards within 200 feet of a residential area. It would also reduce the maximum size of the billboard from 800 square feet to 300 square feet.

The time the companies have to conform with the proposed ordinance would be five years. A new regulation was added regarding the removal of new signs. The companies would have to put up a $150 bond and if they did not remove the sign on its expiration date, the county would use the money to do so.

Presently the county has no way of doing this unless they take the company through lengthy and expensive court actions.

“I want that bond big enough to make sure those signs come down,” Supervisor Ernest Debs commented. Supervisor Kenneth Hahn also voiced objections to signs which are left erected.

“It’s a gimmick used by the companies. They violate rules, purposely.” He complained that “Whatever they’re selling has already been sold:” “Is that ordinance going to correct the problem?” Hahn asked Kinkead.

Kinkead answered that the bond would allow the county to take down the signs. Debs, however, noted that $150 was not enough unless “They (the county) knock ‘em down and leave them (billboards) piled on the ground.”

Supervisor James A. Hays brought up the subject matter on the signs. He cited one billboard which has an “undraped woman” which advertises a Las Vegas cacino. He said he has received several letters of complaint about it.

The Board members also noted some of the wording of the proposal was not clear.

Carl Boyer III of Newhall was the first to give testimony in favor of adopting the proposed ordinance. He said he “actively supported “the limits on signs on freeways and residential areas.

Boyer, speaking for the Newhall - Saugus - Valencia Homeowners Federation, said they favored more growth for Valencia Valley since as yet there is not a balanced economy. He stressed that the subdivisions must be able to survive.

However, he noted that the signs would be smaller and further apart. He suggested the use of kiosks. He said they could be constructed next to phone booths at service stations.

They could contain maps and pamphlets on developments in the area so that there would not have to be so many billboards.

Architect Robert Barnett, chairman of the sign committee which developed the proposed ordinance, said, “We are trying to improve our surroundings.”

He noted that “The billboard is the only medium which cannot be rejected by the public.” He said the ordinance is “long overdue legislation.”

Designer Ted Wu, also a member of the sign committee, gave six reasons why he is against billboards. He said they are a traffic hazard, they are unfair to local businesses who must compete with them, they are detrimental to property value, they are an invasion of privacy, public opinion is against them, and the local government has the power to make the country beautiful.

Los Angeles Beautiful as well as the Sierra Club strongly supported the proposal. Raymond Page, spokesman for the California Roadside Council also favored the proposed.

The billboard industry then gave its very well-organized presentation against the ordinance. Michael Tobey, of Foster and Kleiser advertising company, introduced the various speakers.

The cry seemed to be loss of business and jobs if the proposal is put into effect. Owners of graphic businesses, steel and electrical companies, and paint manufacturers said they depend upon billboard companies for revenue.

Small billboard company owners said that they would be put out of business if the proposal was put into effect. One businessman noted that the signs on the freeways need to be large so that automobile drivers traveling 70 mph can see the signs well in advance.

Jim Sample of Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company noted that surveys done by the telephone company showed “the public does not mind billboards.” Sample, summarizing the problem, told the Board that billboard companies pay over a quarter of a million dollars in county taxes alone. He said they give taxpayers over $3.1 million.

“Are you going to make any suggestions?” Supervisor Warren Dorn asked after 2 1/2 hours of testimony.

Sample asked the board to reject the proposal and accept a previous proposal made by planning staff members in August. This proposal had been considered by the Regional Planning Commission as being too lenient and unclear.

Sample said they “could not live with the regulation stating that non-conforming signs would have to be down in five years.

“How long then?” Hahn asked. “Forever,” Sample answered.

Debs reacted adversely to the subdivision directional signs which are left up indefinitely. He was referring specifically to five Newhall signs which came up on appeal by Melvin Genser. One of the signs had been erected in 1961.

“The beef is from a little sign. They are put up and never taken down,” Debs said. The large signs, he said, are taken care of.

Hahn, in response to the “loss of business” cry questioned: why couldn’t the companies just make smaller signs? Sample said that no one would want to advertise on them. He explained that the companies construct the signs to the size which is needed.

Debs asked Sample to state exactly how Pacific Outdoor would be affected if the proposal were accepted. Sample said the company has “460-some-odd billboards” in unincorporated areas, plus 64 painted signs.

But he could not give figures for how many signs there are in the Los Angeles area itself. He said that 85 percent of the signs would be non-conforming.

Michael Tobey said Foster and Kleiser has 120 billboards in the unincorporated area, and he also could not give the exact count in the entire county. He said that 80 percent of their signs would be non-conforming.

Debs noted that the companies have not regulated themselves and they will not since it a competitive business. The ordinance was taken under advisement.