Act of God, city ordinance clash over destroyed business signage

January 12, 2007
Santa Paula City Council

An act of God and city ordinance clashed at the January 2 meeting when a local business owner questioned the expense and process related to signage destroyed during recent high winds.

By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesAn act of God and city ordinance clashed at the January 2 meeting when a local business owner questioned the expense and process related to signage destroyed during recent high winds. Zahid Shah, owner of the USA gas station on South 10th Street, said during public comment that he was appearing to “voice my concern as a business owner” after the city issued a stop work order for signage required after the original was destroyed.Shah said that city staff said he was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the signage. “Right now I have a sign that is six feet tall and 12 feet wide, and the new sign” is about a third of the size.Shah said that the CUP application costs $3,700 and requires 10 copies of the site plan and elevations. “Basically, I need everything I would need to build a house,” and Shah questioned the paperwork and expense related to the signage, including a hearing before the city’s Planning Commission.Mayor Ray Luna questioned if the city’s ordinance covers acts of God; and Councilman Bob Gonzales asked, if the damage had resulted from a car hitting the pole and destroying the signage, if a CUP still is required.
City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz said that the issue is more complicated than it appears on the surface. “The issue is that Mr. Shah wants to replace the sign with a smaller sign, but it’s still larger than what code allows...” and that if only the broken sign face had been replaced it would have not been a complex issue. In addition, the city had no knowledge of “this until staff saw the sign coming down.”Later, during the future agenda item portion of the meeting, Gonzales asked that a report be prepared regarding the replacement of an existing sign. “No, Mr. Shah was not replacing (an existing sign), he was putting up a new sign,” noted Bobkiewicz, who offered to document the chronology of events related to the issue.Luna said he would like to take a “close look at our ordinances” governing signage to find an equitable agreement for the city and business owners in such cases. City Attorney Karl Berger said that code currently has such caveats, but noted that it would be premature for him to offer an opinion and improper for the Council to become deeply involved in Shah’s issue in case future action is taken on it.Berger said he would prepare a report on existing code and make recommendations at a future Council meeting. “There’s a whole host of regulations” and provisions in current code that address “these kinds of unfortunate events,” he added.



Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

E-SUBSCRIBE
Call 805 525 1890 to receive the entire paper early. $50.00 for one year.

webmaster