BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
AB 2566
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Isadore Hall, Chair
AB 2566 (Hill) - As Amended: April 12, 2012
SUBJECT : Outdoor advertising: exemptions.
SUMMARY : Provides an exemption from the regulations of the
Outdoor Advertising Act (OAA) for an advertising display located
on State Route 1, in the County of San Mateo, if certain
conditions are satisfied. Specifically, this bill :
1) Creates an exemption from the outdoor advertising
prohibition along scenic highways for a pre-existing sign
located in San Mateo County, on State Route 1, at Post Mile
31.51, 510 feet south of Magellan Road, when:
a) States both the land owner and the local government
with land use jurisdiction have consented to the display and
have provided written evidence of that fact to the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).
b) Provides the placement of the display will not
necessitate trimming, pruning, topping, or removal of existing
trees in order to make the display visible or to improve its
visibility, unless done as part of the normal landscape
maintenance activities that would be undertaken without regard
to the placement of the display.
c) Provides the display does not advertise products or
services that are directed at an adult population, including,
but not limited to, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or sexually
explicit material.
d) Maintains that the display does not cause a reduction
in federal aid highway funds, under the federal scenic highway
law (23 USC 131). If the display causes a reduction in federal
aid highway funds, Caltrans shall revoke the permit granted
under this bill.
e) Provides that the display is not flashing, is not a
message center, and is not bigger than 72 inches in length and
168 inches in height.
AB 2566
Page 2
f) Provides that the display contains the words "beach
access."
2) Provides that a penalty, as defined, may be reduced by
Caltrans upon a showing of good cause presented to the
department within 30 days of the decision imposing the penalty,
or by the authority before which the matter is adjudicated.
3) Makes legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the County of San Mateo.
EXISTING LAW :
1) Establishes OAA, which regulates the placement of
advertising displays adjacent to and within specified distances
of highways that are part of the national system of interstate
and defense highways and federal-aid highways.
2) Prohibits any advertising display from being placed or
maintained on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that
has been landscaped if the advertising display is designed to be
viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way
of the landscaped freeway. The Act, however, only applies to
signs that are located within 660 feet of the right-of-way of
federal-aid interstate and primary highways.
3) Provides for limited exemptions and specified exceptions to
the prohibition on advertising along system and landscaped
freeways, including exemptions for signs advertising the
property's sale or lease, signs designating the premises or its
owner, and signs advertising goods or services manufactured or
produced on the property itself.
4) Allows a single advertising structure exemption for each of
several cities, including an exemption for advertising on
"street furniture" in San Francisco, several billboards situated
on the grounds of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum complex,
and structures within the Mid-City Recovery Redevelopment
Project Area within Los Angeles.
5) Requires Caltrans to assess penalties for a violation of the
OAA, as specified. If an advertising display is placed or
maintained in a location that does not conform to the provisions
of this chapter or local ordinances, and is not removed within
thirty days of written notice from the department or the city or
AB 2566
Page 3
the county with land use jurisdiction over the property upon
which the advertising display is located, a penalty of ten
thousand dollars ($10,000) plus one hundred dollars ($100) for
each day the advertising display is placed or maintained after
the department sends written notice shall be assessed.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill : According to the author, this bill seeks
to create a very narrow exemption to the Outdoor Advertisement
Act (OAA) for an outdoor advertising display placed on land
adjacent to Highway 1 in the town of Half Moon Bay. The bill
would also permit the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) or the designated adjudicating authority permission
to reduce a penalty upon a showing of good cause.
According to the author, the Miramar Restaurant sign, located on
located on Highway 1 in San Mateo County has been on display for
22 years and has become part of the Half Moon Bay community.
The advertising display directs visitors to the restaurant and
at the bottom of the sign it has an arrow with the words "Beach
Access Next Right" and also names two other establishments,
Landis Shores Oceanfront Inn and Cypress Inn Bed and Breakfast.
In 1990, the owner of the sign applied to the County of San
Mateo for a use permit to erect the display. The County
approved the application, subject to getting the appropriate
permit from Caltrans. Unfortunately, the required outdoor
advertising permit was never obtained from Caltrans but the sign
was and still remains erected. Between 1990 and 1998, the sign
was displayed without the proper outdoor advertising permit.
The owner of the sign applied for a permit from Caltrans, but
was denied twice. Caltrans denied the permit in 1999 and 2000
because "the location of the display was not zoned for
commercial use, and there was no business activity within 1,000
feet of the display". The author states, that Caltrans was
incorrect. The display was within 1,000 feet of business
activity.
Between 1999 and 2010, the sign continued to be in operation on
the property without the proper Caltrans permit.
AB 2566
Page 4
On March 17, 2010, Caltrans issued a Notice of Violation (NOV)
for alleged violations of the OAA. The NOV cited the sign owner
with violating provisions of the law pertaining to: 1) placing
advertising without a permit; 2) advertising in a residential
zone; 3) no proof of property owner consent; display not within
1,000 feet of business activity; and 4) unpaid licensee fee for
outdoor advertising display. The author maintains however, for
as long as the sign has been up the owners have paid permit fees
to the county and they also paid the Caltrans outdoor licensing
fee. In addition, the 1,000 feet of business activity
infraction was later withdrawn by Caltrans.
The owner of the sign was granted the right to appeal and an
administrative hearing followed.
On May 3, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a
proposed decision finding that the sign owner violated the OAA
by placing an advertising display on residential land without
first having secured a permit from Caltrans. The ALJ assessed a
total penalty of $43,000 dollars under Business and Profession
Section 5485 (representing the period from the date of the NOV
through the day of the hearing). On May 6, 2011, Caltrans
adopted the ALJ's proposed decision as its decision.
On June 9, 2011, the sign owner filed a petition to set aside
Caltrans decision. In December 2011, the author states the
petition was granted in part. The court issued a peremptory
writ of mandate commanding Caltrans to set aside and reconsider
its decision with regard to the imposition of penalties. The
author states, that according to Caltrans documentation,
"although the administrative law judge found the penalty to be
"excessive under the circumstances of this case, the language
contained in B & P Section 5485 is mandatory and provides no
discretion to reduce the penalty."
The author states, hence the need for the other component of
this bill which makes a change to
B & P Section 5485 by granting Caltrans or the adjudicating
authority proper discretion to lower the penalty when the
circumstances of a case merit a decrease in penalties.
The author points out that this sign in Half Moon Bay has been
part of the community for over two decades and unlike a
traditional billboard, the aesthetics of the sign blend with its
surroundings. In addition, the removal of this sign will have
AB 2566
Page 5
a severe impact on the financial viability of the businesses it
advertises.
A legislative remedy is seen by proponents as the only option
available to secure an exemption from the OAA.
Background : The Act regulates the placement of advertising
displays (i.e., billboards) and signs along interstate or
primary highways, landscaped freeways and similar specified
highways. It sets standards for the structures, including their
size, identification and location, and requires compliance with
application procedures and conditions administered by Caltrans.
The Act prohibits any advertising display from being placed or
maintained on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that
has been landscaped if the advertising display is designed to be
viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled
way of the landscaped freeway.
Existing law provides for general exemptions and specified
exceptions to the prohibition on advertising along landscaped
freeways, including exemptions for signs advertising the
property's sale or lease, signs designating the premises or its
owner, and signs advertising goods or services manufactured or
produced on the property itself. In addition, since 1995, a
number of bills have created exemptions for specific cities,
including an exemption for advertising on "street furniture" in
San Francisco, five signs situated on the property of the
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum complex, one sign each in the
cities of Costa Mesa and Richmond, and four signs within the
Mid-City Recovery Redevelopment Project Area within Los Angeles.
This bill would authorize an advertising billboard or structure
that is nonconforming to both the specifics and intent of the
Act, which is to limit or prohibit highway-adjacent advertising
structures.
Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 : The Highway
Beautification Act (HBA) was created to protect the public
investment, promote the safety and recreational value of public
travel, and to preserve the natural beauty of highways in
the nation.
HBA specifies that states have the responsibility to enforce
provisions regarding the placement and maintenance of outdoor
advertising signs, displays and devices along the Interstate and
AB 2566
Page 6
National Highway System. The state of California enforces
the provisions of federal law through a compact that was
developed between the state and the federal government in 1967.
Federal law also includes a penalty for states that violate HBA
by reducing all federal highway transportation funds by a
designated percentage.
In support : Proponents state that this sign is essential to the
survival of their businesses, and it's invaluable to coastal
travelers exploring Half Moon Bay. For over 20 years this sign
has served the local coast-side merchants and the general
public, enabling these local businesses vital exposure to
Coastal visitors and assisting in directing the visitors to this
otherwise obscure location.
A proponent further states, "Our eighteen-room lodging property,
the Cypress Inn, relies on this sign for a significant portion
of our business. Last year, for example, 19% of our daily
arrivals had no prior reservation - many of these, no doubt,
directed to us by the Highway 1 sign. In revenue, this equates
to about $200,000 per year ($20,000 in local tax revenues), and
without this income stream, I doubt we could remain profitable,
especially in the current economic climate."
Proponents state that without this bill, the sign will have to
be taken down which will induce economic hardship for the
affected businesses. AB 2566 will ensure that the sign is
preserved and will continue to help small businesses remain
fiscally solvent at this location within the County of San
Mateo.
Policy issues : This bill would authorize the placement of an
advertising sign that is nonconforming to both the specifics and
intent of the OAA. It might extend further the precedent for
legislative approval of exemptions to OAA. Exemptions for
nonconforming and prohibited billboards and lighted signs
adjacent to landscaped freeways might undermine and render
meaningless the provisions and intent of the OAA.
Prior legislation : SB 402 (Vargas) of 2011-2012 Legislative
Session. Provides an exemption from the regulations of the Act
for an advertising display located within 1,800 feet of the
intersection of State Highway Routes 8 and 111 in the County of
Imperial if certain conditions are satisfied. (Senate Rules
Committee)
AB 2566
Page 7
AB 1117 (Benoit) of 2007, would have deemed an advertising
display erected by a city or county to advertise businesses
operating within a redevelopment agency project area, or within
a business improvement district whose boundaries partly or
wholly overlap those of the redevelopment agency project area,
to be on the premises at any location within 1,000 feet of the
legal boundaries of the redevelopment agency's project area if
the display meets certain conditions. (Died - Never heard in
Senate Local Government Committee)
AB 563 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2007, would have deleted the
"rebuttable presumption" in current law that deems those
advertising displays that were unlawfully erected as lawful if
the sign owner had not received notice that the display was
unlawful within five years of the display being erected. This
bill also would have deleted the requirement that entities
requiring the removal of unlawfully erected signs pay sign
owners just compensation to do so. (Died in Senate Rules
Committee)
AB 1499 (Benoit) of 2006, would have created an exemption to the
Act, to permit the City of Riverside to erect an outdoor
advertising display along Highway 91 to promote economic
activity for the Riverside Plaza. (Vetoed by Governor)
AB 801 (Jones) of 2006, would have created an exemption from the
Outdoor Advertising Act for one sign in the County of
Sacramento. (Vetoed by Governor)
AB 2441 (Klehs) of 2006, would have authorized an advertising
display in the redevelopment zone of the City of San Leandro
subject to specified conditions. (Vetoed by Governor)
AB 1518 (J. Horton) of 2006, would have exempted, from the
prohibition against placing advertising displays adjacent to
landscaped freeways, any billboard located on property owned by
the Lennox School District, subject to certain conditions. (Died
pending concurrence in the Assembly)
AB 762 (Nuņez), Chapter 725, Statutes of 2003, creates an
exemption to the Act by allowing the National Latino Arts
Council to place an advertisement on the roof of a
not-for-profit educational academy.
AB 2566
Page 8
SB 190 (Perata), Chapter 54, Statutes of 2001, exempts a certain
development of highway advertising in Oakland from existing laws
protecting landscaped highways permitted the City of
Artesia to erect an advertising display alongside a landscaped
highway. Permitted the City of Artesia to lease one billboard
space adjacent to the 91 Freeway on city property.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bay World Travel & Tours
California Sign Association
San Mateo County Association of REALTORS
Half Moon Bay Coastside Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau
Inns by the Sea
Law & Mediation Offices of Paul G. Minoletti
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Eric Johnson / G. O. / (916) 319-2531