Downtown signage stirs heated debate

[Erik Sine]

Downtown signage stirs heated debate

Wednesday, Jan 18 2012, 1:34 pm

By Todd R. Hansen/Colusa County Sun-Herald

One councilwoman suggested two of her colleagues were acting for their own personal benefit, the City Council was accused of running business out of town, and charged with letting the city manager run the show.

The cause of all the raucous at Tuesday night’s council meeting was a proposal to place a 45-day moratorium on the use of LED (Light Emitting Diodes) and digital signage in the downtown area.

The proposal failed on a 3-2 vote.

“I definitely oppose what you are trying to do. ... I think this sign ordinance is ridiculous,” said Peter

Steidlmayer, an investor who said he owns two downtown buildings and should have the right to advertise his investments as he sees fit.

“What you are doing is putting out a sign telling me to leave, and I will leave,” he said.

The proposal was introduced by Councilwomen Donna Critchfield and Kay Hosmer, who insisted the reason was to give staff enough time to develop the kind of regulations and standards the city wants for signage in the downtown area – and specifically on the historic buildings.

They saw it as part of the overall downtown economic and improvement plan the city has been working on in recent months.

The moratorium area was defined as from Bridge to 14th streets, and from Oak Street to the Sacramento River.

But Mike West, a former mayor and owner of the Jackpot convenience store at Market and Eighth streets, believes it would only be the start of such restrictions placed on businesses across town.

He said the schools were considering digital signs to alert people to activities and other notices, and this kind of restriction would prevent that.

However, City Manager Jan McClintock said the city had no control of what the schools do on their property, and reiterated that the matter was brought to the council by two members and not by the staff – a clear reference to the innuendo that she and not the council was making the decisions for the city.

Tom Imdrieri, owner of Tommy’s Market and Grill and a county supervisor, also asked for a no vote on the moratorium.

He listed seven businesses that had left the area since he opened his business, and the proposed signage restriction would be counter to the greater goal of businesses being able to attract customers, and the city being able to attract businesses.

West said when other businesses close, all businesses are negatively impacted.

Additionally, Indrieri and West did not believe the council should be the first stop for airing such as proposal, and said the council was circumventing the Planning Commission process by taking up the matter directly.

The council has a specific policy that allows it to address issues when two council members ask it be placed on an agenda.

Still, there were supporters.

Catherine Bernard, a member of the city’s Tree Commission, and Donna Krause, a member of the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, supported the proposal.

They argued that people do expect a certain look to the downtown area, and bright, blinking LED signs do not fit that expectation.

“I think there are other ways of doing it,” said Bernard, referring to the kind of signage businesses can use to attract attention.

But Councilman Tom Reische, owner of Messick’s Ace Hardware, and Councilman Kirk Kelleher, owner of Kelleher Paint, were steadfastly opposed to any action that could restrict business.

They gained the reluctant support of Mayor Pat Landreth in quashing the proposal.

Critchfield then asked the city attorney if the councilmen who own businesses in the restriction area, and who opposed the proposal, had a conflict of interest.

Krysten Hicks said that would be a matter for the Fair Political Practice Commission.

“Donna, you can take that up with the Fair Political Practices Commission if you would like to,” a clearly flustered Reische said. “I’ve been there before.”