CC - 10-22-79 - Study Session MeetingSTUDY SESSION
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 22, 1979
-1-f ZA-
¢-~C~r1L4'K
A Study Session of the Rosemead City Council was called
to order by Mayor Taylor at 9:00 p. m., in the Conference Room
of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California.
The Study Session is regarding the Sign and Billboard
Ordinance of the City of Rosemeadwhich has been recommended
by the Rosemead Planning Commission to up date this section
of the Municipal Code.
Councilman Tury requested that 9151.3 (e) be modified by
amending the wording to read "(e) Free Standing Signs displayed
from trucks;autos,trailers or other vehicles except public buses."
Councilman Tury requested that 9151.3 (f) be modified by
amending the wording to read: "(f) Revolving and or mechanical
flashing signs".
Councilman Tury questioned 9151.1 (d) Projecting Signs
Prohibited section be amended by adding except those allowed
by the L. A. County Bldg. Code, and insert that portion of
of the Bldg. Code to our Ordinance.as explanation. 9153. (c)
Free standing signs. also have the portion relating to Free
Standing Signs of the L. A. County Bldg. Code added to.this
ordinance.
Fred Guido, Pacific Outdoor Advertising representative, and
John Glenn, Foster & Kleiser representative were both present
and expressed their feelings and answered the inquiries of the
Council regarding their respective companies.
Pacific Outdoor Advertising has two oversized Billboards
in the City and five other signs, and Foster & Kleiser has
46 in all, and it was the consensus of the Council that they
be allowed to keep those signs, but as they are removed that
others do not take there place. It was also stated that if
the sign company chose to use both sides of the sign that would
be permissable, and 9909 C. (3) would have the following words
added: "or shall have a second face for advertising display."
Councilman Cichy commented on the Business License Section
regarding Billboards.which would be 6207.
Ed Dilkes, City Attorney, stated that it is not clear if
this tax would be allowable since Proposition #13.
Councilman Tury stated that with the conditions stipulated
for the Billboards this business license would be inappropriate
and should be completely dropped.
There being no objection, this was so ordered.
Ed Dilkes, City Attorney, stated that he would reword sections
9909 and 9910 and according to the plot for the amount of Billboards
in the City of Rosemead.it will remain the same.
Councilman Hunter stated that the numbers should be validated
and the location, and all,other than the two oversized signs,have
to be brought up to standard.
Ed Dilkes, City Attorney, inquired what amortization period
should be set if these signs are not brought up to standard, and
inquired if a year would be reasonable.
Mayor Taylor stated that he felt that one year would be a
reasonable length of time.
Study Session
Page #1
10-22-79
Ed Dilkes inquired
still not conform to the
be given to remove their
would be four years.
C
if after the year the Sign Company does
required standards how.long would they
signs,, and that a normal period of time
Councilman Tury stated that he would go six months amortiza-
tion period on the small signs less than 300 sq. feet and five
years for those that are larger for those billboards that do not
conform to the standards set in the ordinance, and have not been
brought up to conformity within the year.
There being no further discussion the Study Session regard-
ing the Sign and Billboard Ordinance was adjourned to October
23, 1979 at 8:00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted:
Cc~ ~s~!tdL~3"~Le.~yt.luJ
CITY/CLERK
APPROVED:
AYOR OF RO MEAD
Study Session
Page #2
10-22-79