Inertia plagues South Tahoe council regarding sign rules
By Kathryn Reed
What’s another two hours of discussion about South Lake Tahoe’s sign ordinance when it’s been on the books for the past 15 years?
The problem is the issue wasn’t resolved at 9:15pm Tuesday when the talking ended. The council directed staff to come back with revisions to the law. It may be October when the next round of jibber-jabber commences.
If South Tahoe creates a historical sign category, Sno-Flake may qualify. Photo/LTN
This was a continuation of the June 29 workshop. And like that meeting, everyone agreed inconsistent enforcement is a big issue.
“It shouldn’t take six to 12 months to enforce the sign ordinance,” City Attorney Patrick Enright said. Streamlining that process is something staff has been directed to do.
At times the heart of the issue seemed lost two nights ago as council members nitpicked about whether the U.S. flag should be used as promotional material and whether garage sale signs are a nuisance. The irony being the flag isn’t even addressed in the ordinance, as staff had to point out to the five during the July 26 evening workshop.
Councilman Bruce Grego’s hang up was believing all signs will look alike, making for a homogenous setting.
What to do about historical signs like Sno-Flake and Stardust is also an issue yet to be resolved.
Hilary Hodges, Community Development director, said if business and property owners would use a bit of creativity, plenty of sign diversity would exist.
The main issue, though it didn’t receive much attention until Councilwoman Angela Swanson made a passionate speech, is how to address the signs in the way of Caltrans’ Highway 50 project from Trout Creek to Ski Run Boulevard.
Hodges said 31 non-conforming signs, with seven of them being multiple business signs, exist in that area.
Staff came up with an incentive plan where the city would fund partial replacement of freestanding signs in that section of town at a cost not to exceed $138,000.
While no action was taken at the meeting, it appeared the council wants to move in that direction. But it was also stated they want funding to be available for everyone as the roadwork phases continue.
To improve the roads, and put in curbs, gutters and bike paths is means signs need to be moved out of the right-of-way. The city needs to decide if it is going to allow the signs to be put back in or force the compliance issue during road construction.
Is now the right time to mandate enforcement of signs – therefore creating an expense for businesses or property owners – or is waiting until the economy improves more prudent? Those are questions the council is wrestling with.
A freestanding sign can cost $10,000.
The smaller issue, though the one that gets more attention, is the use of temporary signs. The council is leaning toward allowing sandwich boards and banners for special events and limited time periods.
Now is the time to require signs to follow the same theme throughout town. It would be so much more attractive to have some sort of mountain type of theme. A few of the older ones could be grandfathered in as traditional signs of a previous era, such as Snowflake. No signs should be in the new right of way!
It will be difficult to have a financial allotment, but it seems that if each newly required sign at each business was given the same amount of funding, it would equalize……
As far as garage sale signs go, they just need to be removed at the end of the garage sale, usually on Sunday afternoons. If those giving the garage sale were required to remove them on the final day, things would look much more neat. After all, they know where they put them and should be responsible for cleaning up their messes! Fine them when they don’t remove them! Their address is right on the sign!
What amazes me is how a new business like Outfitters at the Y is not ticketed for their sandwich sign which is illegal. Why would you stick your business in such a bad location to need that ugly sign in the first place? They shouldn’t need to make the citizens who drive by every day pay for their location mistake by looking at this eyesore. This is just one example of many folks. Believe me there are more. The old stone wall sign still standing alone in front of the Thai restaurant at the Y is illegal. Display signs in use by motels with broken lenses should be repaired. Why not tackle one item at a time instead of every issue at once? You can see where it has gotten the city – nowhere in 15 yrs. Start with banners and sandwich signs first. Enact a program or law. Ticket those who break the law. Move on to the next issue. Does it really have to be so hard SLT? To many cooks spoil the broth and this sign deal is the perfect example of no one taking control but instead passing the buck. Council is wasting every ones time, and money. Could it be because they don’t want to make the hard decisions which would effect some of their friends business signs?
Could it be because they don’t want to make the hard decisions which would effect some of their friends business signs? Hit the nail on the head with that one Bob. Each segement that is involved with the signs are trying to protect their constituants, chamber members, friends and individual owners are only concerned with themselves. At the first meeting I suggested the idea of a rebate program with the money they were going to give to the school district, about $250,000.00. Radical idea offering a cash incentive but they took it to heart and are going to implement a cash incentive program. Kinda silly on my part but the credit was given to staff and the Wallaces for the idea but what the hey, can’t lose sleep over it. I suggested another idea at the last one which is to implement and enforce the ordinances with an outside person that the city could hire who has no affiliation with the city. Similar to what the CM is doing now, like him or not he is doing what should have been done 25 years ago. Someone needs to take a stand and say the buck stops here. We have been dealing with this for a long time and even though this is an economic downturn now is the time to implement / enforce the existion policys.
The City Council is preparing to inflict yet more pain, heartache and suffering on the struggling SLT business economy. Now is NOT the time to hit business owners with new expenses. Judging from the steady deterioration of our local economy and the major role the City Council has played in harassing businesses, it would appear that the ultimate result of the sign ordinances will be one uniform sign: “CLOSED FOR BUSINESS”.
Maybe along with every business having the exact same mountain themed signs we can rebuild all the buildings so they all match too. Went to a new coastal town in Washington state that was all totally the same victorian architecture. Quite hideous. Yes, but uniformity is such a good thing, Comrades. Cuts down on evil capitalist competition.
The real estate “open house” signs on every corner, with multiple signs on some corners, are an eyesore in the residential neighborhoods. Every weekend Tahoe Keys looks like Coney Island with these ugly signs all over the place.
Have you ever driven through towns that have very strict sign ordinances? The only thing one recognizes is corporate branding so the little guys get edged out because they cannot compete because tourists have no idea what the non-corporate business offers but from past experience whether they like it or not know what they will get at the branded business. Local business in Tahoe pay the same city taxes as huge corporate entities so they really should get a break when it comes to advertising their business in order to “level the playing field”
Steve, I don’t recall seeing you or any of the other posters at any of the meetings, if you had been there you could have made your feelings known and possibly offer an alternitive. That would have been refreshing to see reather than you always sitting in the background yammering. There have been some good input both good and bad and the city has taken into consideration all suggestions but they need help. At every sign meeting they start out with public input because they don’t know what to do either and are looking for guidence. Show up and get involved or otherwise the same ole same ole players will be making the decisions that affect our “community” rather than trying to support their members, friends or single biz owner. This has to be for the betterment of the community. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. (stolen from Spock)
Steve, we were told by the real estate rep that there were only going to be 4-5 open houses in the city. I specifically asked that of their rep and that was the answer given. I asked them how many houses were for sale in the city and they said about 400. They wanted an exemption to place up to 5 signs for directions to open houses and I figured that was about 2000 signs and they assured me and the council it was no more than 4-5 open houses that would have signs. Once again special interests. Go to a meeting and voice your complaint as it is a very valid one.
New signs should be controlled by ordinance without supported funding. Heritage signs like Snowflake should be encouraged as they are history. Existing signs which are insulting to the city, they should encourage the business to change to, possibly with supported funding.
Another interesting dialogue in SLT (now certified as sleepy little town)- I remember Skibum making the suggestion as to using the quarter of a million dollars designated to go to the school district to ‘clean up’ the sign issue.
The school district has done such a good job of expanding the grant arena for themselves – (which, of course, is us – a reminder, as sometimes they all act as if we are not a party to their discussions)- that the quarter of a million to them should be put off so we can begin the ‘beautification’ of one AREA at a time (not one sign) – with the current project from Trout Creek to Ski Run as a start.
What’s the point of having an upgraded roadway if we do the labor to put back old signs – according to Ms. Hodges, the 31 signs done at a cost of $ 138,000 is 55% of the 250,000 “going to” the district – does the 138,000 she mentions add to the 250,000 (?), for a total of 388,000 from City coffers.
If so, there’s the dilemma – as both are in essence ‘economic development’ issues – a good school structure or a good business district structure (i.e. infrastructural).
Not much has been said about why the district is supposed to get $ 250,000 – so, consider that reason again, and shift to the sign issue if warranted so once & for all we make “assets” out of “liabilities” with whatever we spend – with funds that are obviously in shorter supply.
The district has received millions and millions, while the City is still in bedraggled condition.
City is still in bedraggled condition.
Well when you drag your feet, bring back to council for decades at time, things tend to get bedraggled.
The Sign issue and ton other codes are nothing but toilet paper clogging up the future with over flowing Expensive Plumber COST.
TOO MANY BUDDIES,FRIENDS,COUNCIL MEMBERS,CATCHING CRABS FROM THE FILTHY SHEETS THEY ALL SHARE.
LET THEM SCRATCH TILL THE SKIN TURNS RED AND MAYBE A VISIT TO THE GERM DOC, MIGHT CLEAR UP THE INFECTION OF LIGATION OF BS THATS TAKING YEARS OF NEGLICTED RESPONBILITY.
si who’s calling the bee factor?
The sign ordinance conversations sound a lot like the debt ceiling conversations. Lots of hot air and no solutions.
Skibum was on mark…the City fails to make good decisions when it could have an impact on their ‘friends’.