|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
We will be continually updating the CalSign Web site. Email us with your suggestions. |
 |
| Updated:
November 16, 2009
|
|
| LA Sign Ordinance | Members Alert | Jeff Aran Report | |
| Legal/Legislation | |
|
|
Click here for LA Sign Ordinance & AB 109 Click on title to view entire article.
Caltrans: Proposed Regulatory Changes to the Outdoor Advertising Act Disapproved Letter to Caltrans Below is a copy of the letter CSA presented to Caltrans regarding the proposed regulatory changes to the Outdoor Advertising Act. Mr. James Arbis RE: Proposed Regulatory Changes Dear Mr. Arbis: The California Sign Association has reviewed the proposed regulatory changes to the Outdoor Advertising Act and recommends the following modifications. Please confirm receipt of this letter. Thank you. SECTION 2241(b)—The language that the hearing shall “decide all issues involved” means that Caltrans, itself, must raise all the issues upon which a violation notice or denial is based. In my experience, many of the issues are not raised because they are defenses or involve constitutional challenges which administrative law judges are ill-equipped to address or resolve. 2241(b)(3)—CHANGE to read: “The failure without good cause of a permittee or other person who has appealed to appear or present a defense at the time and place of the hearing shall be deemed…” 2241(b)(5)—CHANGE to read: “The director may specify administrative or court decisions that may have application to similar situations… All such decisions shall be posted on the DOT website and shared with the appellant.” 2241(b)(6)—“Administrative costs” is undefined. Regardless, it should read “reasonable costs,” not “all costs.” Further, in keeping with custom and practice, only a prevailing party is entitled to such costs. 2241(b)(7)—NEW—We propose the following new section be added: (7) Administrative hearings held under this section shall not require the expedited review procedures of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.8. [RATIONALE: CCP 1094.8 establishes a 21-day window for expedited judicial review of permits and/or denials relating to “expressive conduct,” which may apply to certain messages. The 21-day period should be optional, or at least waivable, in particular because often both Caltrans and the appellant have minimally 30 days to comply and/or reconsider their positions. The 21-day window forces the parties into court when it may not be necessary.] 2242(d)—Grammar is poor. Should read: “Message Center Display means a display where the message can be changed remotely or without manually changing copy at the display.”[However, does this now mean that a “message center display” that can only be changed manually, i.e., the old-fashioned readerboard, for example, is no longer a message center? Are these now “Static Displays”? Please clarify.] 2242(k)—Please clarify—Do you want to change “distant means” to “remote”? Also, the definition is too broad—LEDs are being used in almost all signs now. We assume you mean when you say, “These include displays using incandescent lamps, LED’s” etc., that you are only referring to displays with electronically changeable copy. 2242(r)—Delete “its.” 2242(v)—Grammar is poor. Should read: “…means an advertising display where the copy or message can only be changed on the premises where the sign is located.” 2242(z)—Change “louvers” to “louver.” Change “construction to display” to “construction intended to display.” 2243(a)—Change “on which” to “where.” Change “but” to “and.” 2243(b)— Change “on which” to “where.” Change “but” to “and.” 2243(c)—Even though you have not made changes to this section per se, by changing the initiating text of 2243, it now reads as if the types of signs listed in (c) are not on-premise signage, when in fact they are. We don’t think this was the intent, but (c) must now be deleted in its entirety or reworked to indicate that such signs are still in fact “on-premise” signage, except when located “off site.” 2243(e)—“More conspicuously” is unconstitutionally vague. 2243(f)—This section makes no sense and has nothing to do with off-premise signage. It would seemingly convert an unpermitted on-premise display into an off-premise sign. Please clarify—what does it mean? 2244—This proposed revised section, which essentially shifts the burden of signage approvals in redevelopment projects from Caltrans to redevelopment agencies, is not authorized by statute. Further, the proposal makes a material change in law by establishing unnecessary bureaucracy and creating a significant hardship and burden on business, sign companies and redevelopment agencies. Section (b), which seeks to define a qualifying business, is particularly egregious and probably constitutes unlawful interference with commerce. Section (d) improperly seeks to assign valuation determinations from Chapter 2.5 of the Business & Professions Code, Section 5492, to off-premise signage. Chapter 2.5 applies only to on-premise advertising displays. See B&P Code Section 5490. Thus, Section 5492 is inapplicable to off-premise signage. 5492 provides:
It seems 2244(d) seeks to create an end-run around the State’s obligation to pay just compensation under Chapter 2 by relying upon a statute that would allow the State to pay lesser compensation. The current regulations should remain as is. 2271(c)—Tortuous is the wrong word. 2272—What does “current copy” mean in the context of this revision? 2401(d) (7), (8) and (9)—We see no good cause, rationale or statutory authority for these proposed new “examples,” especially in the technological age of the 21st century. 2422(b)(2)(E) and (F)—Please explain the percentage determinations. They appear to be arbitrary. 2444—Please add language to this section clarifying that on-premise message centers within 660' of the highway do not require a Caltrans permit. Thank you for your due consideration of these concerns. We look forward to further discussion as the revisions wend through the administrative process. Sincerely, JEFFREY L. ARAN cc: Mark Gastineau (Arrow Sign Company), Government Affairs Committee Co-Chair How RoHS Laws Affect You & Your Sign Company The Electronic Waste Recycling Act (EWRA) (SB 20, Sher 2003) required the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to adopt regulations to prohibit covered electronic devices “from being sold or offered for sale” in California if they are prohibited from sale in the European Union (EU) under Directive 2002/95/EC, “Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances”, or RoHS. The EU’s RoHS prohibits the sale of certain electronic devices if they contain heavy metals in concentrations above specified regulatory limits. As of January 1, 2007 DTSC has adopted RoHS regulations that will restrict the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium in certain electronic devices sold in California. These new regulations have banned the sale of some electronic devices that contain certain hazardous substances. California’s RoHS law applies only to a “covered electronic device”, which is defined in statute as “a video display device containing a screen greater than four inches, measured diagonally, identified in the regulations adopted by [DTSC]”. DTSC had identified covered electronic devices in its regulations to include:
DTSC has not listed electric signs in its regulations. Therefore these electronic devices are not "covered electronic devices" and are not subject to the Electronic Waste Recycling Act. For the California's Restriction on the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Some Electronic Devices (RoHS) website go to: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/EWaste/upload/Restriction_on_Electronic_Devices_01-05-06.pdf For the website “How do I Know if my E-Waste is Covered by the Electronic Waste Recycling Act?” go to: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/EWaste/index.cfm#How_do_I_Know_if_my_E-Waste_is_Covered_by_the_Electronic_Waste_Recycling_Act? For more information go to the DTSC Electronic Hazardous Waste (E-Waste) website at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/EWaste/index.cfm#What_is_E-Waste? If you have any further questions about this or any other area of hazardous waste management you can contact the DTSC Regional Office closest to you at 1-800-728-6942 or you can reach the Sacramento Regional Office at (916) 255-3618. You can access the DTSC web site at: www.dtsc.ca.gov DTSC Regulatory Assistance Officers (RAOs) provide informal guidance only regarding management of hazardous waste for the convenience of the public. Such oral or electronic mail advice is not binding upon DTSC, nor does it have the force of law. If you would like a formal opinion on a matter by DTSC, please contact the responsible program office directly. You should also refer to the statutes and regulations, DTSC Policies and Procedures, and other formal documents. We also encourage you to complete the Cal/EPA Customer Satisfaction survey at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Customer/ A sales tax regulatory effort sought by CSA became effective October 1, 2000, changing the way electric signs are taxed in California. We have attached the Tax Information Bulletin regarding this change here for your convenience. Download Section 6 of the Tax Bulletin Download the entire Tax Bulletin All of the information is available on the State Board of Equalization web site, in the Sales & Use Tax section: www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/sutprograms To find the complete regulation, click on Regulations under the Quick Find section. Find 1521 - Construction Contractors. The Electric Sign section is subdivision (c)(12). Caltrans has developed a revised permit application. Download pdf document Subcontracting in Nevada California and other out-of state sign companies doing business in Nevada faced serious fines and disciplinary action when the State of Nevada Contractors Board began issuing warning letters and determined that it was unlawful for Nevada licensees to subcontract with California and other out-of-state contractors for work to be performed in Nevada, unless those contractors also held Nevada licenses. CSA, ISA, the Nevada Sign Association (NSA), the Western States Sign Council (WSSC) and several individuals, including a Nevada state senator, all worked to resolve the issue. Fortunately, on March 29, 2006 the Nevada State Contractors Board issued an advisory opinion which states, “The fabrication of a sign at a manufacturing facility does not meet the definition of ‘contractor’ under Nevada Revised Statutes…Any installation, on-site fabrication, erection or wiring of signs must be provided by a Nevada licensed contractor.” Please click on the link below for the complete document issued by the Nevada State Contractors Board. CSA highly recommends that your sign contracts include language stating you will “arrange for installation with a local, state licensed contractor.” Nevada State Contractors Board Advisory Opinion—Click here
2008 Standards – The requirement for when the 2008 standards must be followed is dependent on when the application for the building permit is submitted. If the application for the building permit is submitted on or after 1/1/10, the 2008 standards must be met
Government Affairs Report This past summer, activity on the CSA front has mostly centered on Los Angeles, but there have been a number of other important events that have kept the Government Affairs Committee busy. Update on Los Angeles At the Capitol Other/Regulatory Caltrans – Proposed regulatory amendments were rejected by the Office of Administrative Law. Not surprisingly, OAL chastised the department for its failure to follow procedure, fully respond to questions and issues raised by stakeholders, and properly notify the public. Whether Caltrans resubmits remains to be seen, but, regardless, hopefully this time they’ll pay attention. CSLB – Guest speakers at the convention will be CSLB legislative director. The proposed C45 definition change is under way and should be law soon. Elsewhere – San Diego is apparently now requiring fabricators licenses…Signs for two businesses in Santa Monica were saved from removal pursuant to B&P Code Section 5499 (Jeff Aran represented the companies in administrative hearings before the city)…ISA posted online study results for appropriate illumination for digital signage…San Jose is updating its ordinance. Past President Terry Long recently attended a city workshop on CSA’s behalf and reported the following: In attendance were 8 outdoor advertising persons (Clear Channel, Silicon View, etc.) and only myself representing on-premise. This meeting postulates all of the items that LA just placed on a moratorium; so coming on the heels of LA it is a bit shocking to attend a city meeting where they are considering downtown billboards/wallscapes, downtown LED screens, raising the height of on-premise signs, and allowing billboards and LED screens on major commercial streets and highways. The city council will take up these issues during their October 6 meeting and planning expects the council to direct planning to revise the city ordinance for adoption in early 2010. This from a city that has always had a tight ordinance and does not allow LED screens until recently, and then on a very limited basis. The possible downside to the council acting in a positive manner on this is the downtown issues came up 2 years ago and the council did not move forward to approve LED’s and billboards for the downtown area. Now they are interested as they think the signs may stimulate downtown activity. The city has had issues with a couple of major signs so the feeling I came away with is that they are stimulated to act in a positive sign manner from their existing 1992 ordinance which is outdated. Thank you, Terry! Legal |
©2005 CALSIGN.ORG | PRIVACY STATEMENT | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
CALIFORNIA SIGN ASSOCIATION | PO BOX 276567 SACRAMENTO, CA 95827-6567 | (916) 932-0021