Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-05; City Council; 7173; Amendment to sign ordinancet RB# 755 73 MTG, 10/5/82 D EPT. CA r. TITLE: AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE e- *. ClTI OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA dlLL DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY %LL CITY MGR.~~? Direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance regulating political campaign signs and authorizing the summary abatement of certain illegal signs. ITEM EXPLANATION Council has asked the City Attorney to report on the City's ability to regulate political campaign signs and to summarily abate certain illegal signs. That report is attached. The report recommends that council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to regulate the posting of political signs and authorize their posting in-the public right-of-way subject to time, place and manner restriction, and to authorize the summary abatement of illegal signs. EXHIBITS Memo from City Attorney CITY OF CARLSBAD VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DATE : To: FROM : SUBJECT: 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 438-5531 MEMORANDUM August 24, 1982 Mayor and City Council City Attorney REGULATION OF POLITICAL SIGNS Some time ago the City Council directed our office to prepare a memorandum on two subjects: First, the regulation of political signs in the City of Carlsbad and, second, the ability of the City to summarily abate signs located in the public right-of- way. To aid in our recommendation of the council, we have asked the cities in the county to tell us their practice. To date, only two cities have responded to our questionnaire, the City of San Diego and the City of Poway. Both the City of San Diego and the City of Poway have a provision for the summary abatement of all signs located in the public right-of-way. We have undertaken our own review of various ordinances of cities in the county and found that many cities allow for the summary abatement of signs located in the public right of way. Our own ordinance allows for an abatement of illegal signs, including those signs located in the public right of way, but does not provide for the summary abatement of such signs. Summary abatement of signs, including political signs, in the public right of way has been upheld by a court of appeal in California. The case upholding that right was Sussli v. City of hearing was denied by the California Supreme Court on July 8, 1981 and the U.S. Suprene Court denied certiorari that same year, 102s. Ct. 643(1981). However, on July 30 of this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down the City of Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting the placement of political signs in the public right-of-way. Taxpayers for Vincent v. Members of the City Council of the City of Los Anqeles, No. 80- 5686,D.C. No. CV79-0957(July 30, 1982). This decision has created a conflict between the state law and the federal law regarding the posting of political signs in the public right-of-way. Because of the supremacy clause contained in the United States constitution, the decision of the Federal Court will prevail until such time as the United States Supreme Court decides the matter. We do not know if the City of Los Angeles intends to appeal the 9th Circuit decision to the U.S. San Mateo, 120 Cal. Ap. 3rd 1, 173 Cal. Reporter 781 (1981 1- A Supreme Court. The reasoning of the 9th Circuit was really quite simple. The court determined that the City was unable to show that there was a substantial relationship to a weighty governmental interest which justified the total prohibition of the posting political signs in a "traditional forum". They also found the City did not show that it's ordinance was the "least drastic means" of protecting the governmental interest involved. The court noted that in analyzing ordinances which regulate first amendment rights, certain rules must be applied. First, the ordinance is presumed unconstitutional and the state must bear the burden of justifying the regulation (this is the exact reverse of the normal situation where ordinances are presumed to be constitutional and the person challenging the ordinance must show that the ordinance totally lacks any rational justification). Second, the law must bear "substantial relation" to a "weighty governmental interest". Third, the law must be the least drastic means of protecting the governmental interest, that is, the restrictions may be "no greater than necessary or essential to the protection of the governmental interest". Finally, the law must be drawn with "narrow specificity". The last test the court found not applicable to the facts of the Taxpayers for Vincent case. After setting out the rules the court analyzed the government's justification for the regulation. The City of Los Angeles had put forth many of the standard arguments in support of its ordinance. Those justifications were: prevention of interference with normal public uses of the public objects; prevention of visual clutter; and prevention of traffic hazards. The court conceded that these were all ligitimate governmental concerns but found that the city did not show why the severe restriction of a total ban was necessary to protect those interests and, therefore, there was no substantial relationship between the ordinance and the governmental purpose. The court also determined that the total ban was not the least drastic means of protecting the governmental interest involved. This is the flip side of the "substantial relationship" test. The court did not say that cities could not impose some regulations on political signs. The taxpayers conceded that the posting of political signs may be subject to reasonable regulations as to time, place and manner of use, and the court agreed that there were less restrictive alternatives to abating the posting of all political signs. "Instead of a general ban", -2- the court said "the city might regulate the size, design and construction of the posters [citation omitted], institute clean up or removal requirements [citation omitted], or provide more stringent regulations for the areas of the city in need of more protection [citation omitted]." The court went on to say "moreover, the city might specifically prohibit the erection of signs that obscure hydrants, traffic signals, or that block motorists lines of sight. We also think it clear that the city might prohibit the posting of signs on trees or shrubs." Our research has discovered that many cities in the county have regulations regarding political signs. Many of those regulations establish a time period within which political signs may be put up and when they must be taken down. There is no time limit in Carlsbad on commercial signs. The present Carlsbad ordinance allows an owner of property to display any non-commercial message which would include political statements as long as the sign complies with size requirement for the zone in which the sign is located and a permit has been issued for the sign. In order to impose a time limit on political signs, the city must show that the need for the restriction is both compelling and non-discriminatory. We think it is possible for this showing to be made, particularly for campaign signs. The difficulty with time limits is determining a reasonable amount of time for the posting and removal of the sign. Because campaign signs are by nature self-limiting, i.e., a campaign sign after an election is about as useful as yesterday's paper, the need for a time limit at all is debatable. However, if council thinks that is necessary to impose a time limit, particularly one for the removal of a sign after the conclusion of the campaign, then it is our opinion that a distinction must be made between political signs which make statements of a general political nature and campaign signs, which are political signs related to a campaign for a particular issue or person at a particular election. The Taxpayers case raises an additional problem with regard to sign regulation. If the council is required to allow political signs to be placed in the public right of way, then certain persons who desire to post other types of signs in the public right of way might argue that the council cannot discriminate between commercial and non-commercial signs under the Metromedia case. (Metromedia was the case which struck down the San Diego billboard ordinance. Council has been briefed on this previously.) While this arguement may have some facial appeal, we believe that it can be overcome in the City of Carlsbad. In regulating signs within the city limits, Carlsbad has relied upon what we think is an exception to the Metromedia ruling, that is, the city is engaged in Ita comprehensive coordinated effort in its commercial and industrial areas to address other obvious contributors to an unattractive envrionment." The council has found that off premise signs are incompatible with all areas of the City. -3- Based on the case law that now exists, the council has three options. The first option is to do nothing and simply proceed under our present ordinances. This option, of course, would not allow for the summary abatement of signs which is one goal that council attempted to achieve. It also exposes the City to litigation and legal expenses because of the total ban on signs in the right-of- way . Second, the council could adopt an ordinance which would allow for the summary abatement of illegal signs. We have prepared an ordinance which would do just that and were ready to present it to the council when the 9th Circuit decision came down. That ordinance does not address the problem of the posting of political signs in the right-of-way because it would continue the present total ban. That ordinance is attached for council review. The risks of the first option are the same for this option. If the third option is adopted the abatement provisions would be similar to the attached ordinance. The third option is to revise the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to address the Taxpayers case. The ordinance would allow the posting of political signs subject to certain "time, place and manner" restrictions in the public right-of-way, and would also provide for the summary abatement of all illegally posted signs. This ordinance would be narrowly drawn to clearly specify the nature of the political sign that could be posted in the right-of-way, specify the time for its placement and its removal, and require a clean up deposit. Our office recommends that the council accept the third option and direct our office to prepare an ordinance to regulate the posting of campaign signs and to allow the City to summarily abate illegally posted signs. Of course, our office would work with the appropriate city departments in the preparation of this ordinance before bringing it back to council. VINCENT F. BIONDO, City Attorney BY DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE, Assistant City Attorney DSH : dvg attachments Survey Letter from Poway City Attorney Copy of San Diego Ordinance Proposed Ordinance No. (authorizes summary abatement) -4- SUMMARY OF POLITICAL REGULATIONS WHICH,WE HAVE REVIEWED FROM THE CODES IN OUR OFFICE EL CAJON Permitted temporarily 1) as truck or trailer mounted sign on industrial or commercial zone; 2) as replacement or cover copy on existing sign; 3) as window sign in any zone; 4) no political sign on public property or utility poles. CHULA VISTA Permitted in any zone; subject to size and time limit regulations; 30 days before and 10 days after election; special permit required. LA MESA Removal within 30 days after election; no signs on public right of way. (Political sign = sign relating to a campaign for candidates or ballot measure.) -1 ,,- CITY OF POWAY COUNCIL MEMBERS: BOB EMERY, Mayor MARY SHEPARDSON. Deputy Mayor LINDA ORAVEC CLYDE REXRODE BRUCE TARZY TO : Daniel S. Hentschke, Asst. City Attorney Carlsbad FROM : JEAN LEONARD HARRIS, City Attorney Poway DATE : June 1, 1982 REFERENCE: Political Signs The City of Poway is currently using the San Diego County Codes and Regulations relative to sign regulation. There is no distinc- tion between political signs and commercial signs within the County ordinances. There is specific prohibition of signs within public property. As such, I have instructed the City of Poway to remove any sign within the public right of way. We are currently considering an ordinance charging the cost of the summary abatement to the principal benefited by the sign. I would be interested in a copy of your final report. cc: City Manager Director of Planning Administrative Offices Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive Mailing Address: P.O. Box 785, Poway, California 92064 (714) 748-6600, (714) 695-1400 7 (0-82-248) ORDINANCE NUMBER 0- (New Series ) Adopted on AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IX, ARTICLE 5, OF THE SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 95.0126, SUBSECTION G, AND BY ADDING SUBSECTION H, RELATING TO REMOVAL OF ILLEGAL SIGNS POSTED UPON PUBLIC PROPERTY. BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as follows: Section 1. That Chapter IX, Article 5, of the San Diego Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended by amending Section 95.0126, Subsection G, and by adding Subsection H to read as follows: SEC. 95.0126 ENFORCEMENT A, B, C, D, E, F. - No changes. G. The owner of any lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign, or notice of any kind placed upon public property, which has been removed by an officer or employee or the City without prior notice to the .- owner, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph F of this Section, may request a hearing conducted by a hearing officer selected by the City Manager. The request for a hearing shall be made in writing to the City Manager and shall be made no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the date the Building Official mails the billing statement specified in paragraph H of this Section, or within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the removal. The purpose of such a PAGE 1 OF 5 hearing shall be limited to determining whether the lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice was, in fact, located upon public property in violation of Municipal Code Section 95.0101A, and the accuracy of the amount billed. Upon receiving a written request for a hearing, the City Manager or his delegate shall cause a hearing to be set not less than five (5) nor more than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request and shall, in writing, provide notification of the hearing to the applicant by means of registered mail, certified mail or hand delivery. The notification shall include the date, time and place of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted by a hearing officer selected by the City Manager. The applicant may have the assistance of counsel or may appear by counsel, and shall have the right to present evidence. In the event that the applicant or counsel representing the applicant fails to appear at the hearing, the evidence of the existence of facts which constitute grounds for removal shall be considered unrebutted. A written copy of the hearing officer's decision shall be furnished to the applicant or his designated representative. The decision of the hearing officer shall be final and nonappealable. Any lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice which has been properly removed under this Section may be returned to the owner upon payment to PAGE 2 OF 5 the City, the cost of removal as specified in paragraph H of this Section. If no timely request is made for a hearing, or if no demand is made for the return of the materials removed, then the City Manager or his delegate is authorized to destroy or dispose of the removed materials. H. (1) When a sign or other matter specified in paragraph F of this Section is posted or caused to be posted in violation of Section 95.0101A, and the City has incurred any expense in removing the sign or other matter, or in repairing public property damaged because of the posting of the sign or other matter, the Building Official may send a bill to the person responsible for posting or causing to be posted the sign or other matter for the actual or estimated cost of removal. Any such expenses incurred shall constitute a debt owed to the City. The Building Official shall establish administrative regulations to govern the billing procedures. Each bill shall include the costs, both direct and indirect, involved in removing the signs or other matter, and in administering the billing procedure. The bill shall describe the basis for the amount billed by indicating the number of signs or other matter posted illegally, the time necessary for removal, the hourly cost of removal, the right to a hearing, and other relevant information. The bill shall also specify a date by PAGE 3 OF 5 which the bill is to be paid, which date shall be no less than ten (10) business days after the bill is mailed. (2) Every person billed may request a hearing pursuant to paragraph G of this Section. Following the hearing the Building Official or his delegate shall review the hearing officer's written decision and shall, within ten (10) business days of the date of the hearing officer's decision, notify the person billed of any adjustment to the bill or any determination not to make an adjustment. This notification shall specify a date by which such bill must be paid, which date shall in no event be less than thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the hearing officer's decision. (3) Any person posting or causing to be posted a sign or other matter in violation of any of the provisions of Section 95.0101A of this Code and failing to pay the amount billed such person for such violation within the period specified in this Section, shall also be liable for expenses incurred by the City in collecting the debt including the cost of paying City employees or other persons to engage in the debt collection. (4) In any civil court action involving any person, firm or corporation, or the chairman, president or other head of any committee or organization for violation of any of the provisions of PAGE 4 OF 5 .’ Section 95.0101, proof that the sign or other matter posted contains the name of or otherwise identifies such person, firm or corporation, or the particular committee or organization involved shall constitute prima facie evidence that the person, firm, corporation or chairman, president or other head of the committee or organization involved posted or caused to be posted such sign or other matter. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day from and after its passage. APPROVED: Jahn W. Witt, CityAttorney BY Deputy City Attorney TFS : ta: 6 80 6/1/82 Or. Dept: Bldg. Insp. Form=r.none PAGE 5 OF 5 2-82 --.-_ -- SIX. 95.0125-D - D. After conducting a public hearing on a Request for Interpretation, the board may, by resolution make recommendations as to reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this Division. E. Within ten days from the date on which the Sign Control Board of Appeals adopted a resolution regarding an interpretation, the Building Official shall notify the party requesting the interpretation whether the Building Official has elected to alter his position as a result of the action by the Sign Control Board of Appeals. The decision of the Building Official shall be final. (Scc. 95.0125 - MAXIMUM SIGN PROJECTION -Amended 3-20-56 by Ord. 6897 N.S.; repealed 3-6-73 by Ord. 11000 N.S.) (Sec. 95.0125 - DECISION OF THE SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS -Added 3-6-73 by Ord. 11000N.S.; repealed 11-12-75 by Ord. 11718 N.S.) (Sec. 95.0125 - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -Added 11-12-75 by Ord. 11718 N.S.) SEC. 95.0126 ENFORCEhlENT tain or mrive any sign, Gi to do any act contrary to or in a manner contrary to any direction, instruction, specification, or provision contained in this Code or any notice lawfully given or posted pursuant to the provisions of this Code or to do any act without any permit hereby required or contrary to the conditions upon which any permit has been issued pursuant to this Code; or to refrain from doing or taking, or to fail to do or take, any act or precaution required to be done or taken prior to, or in doing, anything permitted as in this Code or in any regulation or Specification adopted by this Code provided by any notice lawfully given or posted pursuant to the provisions of this Code; and whether or not in any such case it is expressly stated that the doing of or the failure to do the thing mentioned, shall be lawfiil. B. Every person who violates any of the provisions of the Code, or who causes, suffers, or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or in violation of any of the provisions of this Code, or who ncglects or refrains from doing anything required to be done by any of the provisions of this Code, or who carries out or who suffers, causes, or permits to be carried out any development in a manner prohibited by or contrary to any of thc provisions of this Code, or who fails to comply with any order, direction, or notice given under this Code, may be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable to the penalties imposed by Section 95.0127. For each day that a violation is permitted to exist, it shall constitute a separate offense. C. Where any sign or part thereof, other than those referred to in Subsection E', contravenes this Ordinance or where any sign is in such a condition as to be in danger of falling or is a men- ace to the safety of persons or property, the Building Official shall give to the ownt'r or person In chargc of the sign written notice specifying the danger of the violation, ordering the cessation thereof and requiring either the removal of the sign or the carrying out of remidial work in the time and in the manner that the notice shall specify. Such notice shall be posted by regis- tered mail, return receipt requested or delivered to the owner of the sign or person in charge personally. In the event of failure to comply after 10 days from receipt of said noticc, the Building Official may request that the City Council declare the sign a public nuisance, and such sign may be abated in the manner prescribed by applicable law. D. In the event the Building Official determines that a sign does not conform to the pro- visions of this Code, the Building Official shall give written notice to the owner of the sign or, if the sign owner cannot be located, to the owner of the building or premises upon which the sign is located. Failure to remove the sign or correct the conditions existing within the time specified in the written notice shall constitute a violation of this Code and subject the owner of the sign or building to :he penalties prescribed in Section 11.12. E. Upon discontinuance in business or occupancy of any establishmeiit, the Building Official may require the removal of the on-premise signs advertising or identifying the establish- ment according to the procedure spccified in Section 95.01 19. F. Any lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice of any kind placed upon public property, or on any curb, sidewalk, post, pole, lamp post, hydrant, bridgc, tree or other surface located on public property, in violation of the provisions of this Code, may be removed without notice by any officer or employee of The City of San Diego designated to do so by the y Manager. For purposes of this subsection, public property shall include any public right-of- C. The owner of any lettering, advertiscment, card, poster, sign, or notice of any kind d upon public property, which has been removed by an officer or employee or the City without prior notice to the owner, pursuant to the provisions of Subsection F, ma) request a hearing conducted by a hearing officer selected by the City Manager. The request foi a hearing shall be made in writing to the City hlanager and shall be made within ten (IO! calendar days from the date of the removal. The purpose of such a hearing shall be limited to determining whether the lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice was in fact located upon public property in violation of Municipal Code Section 95.0101 A. Upon rereiving a written request A. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, place, construct, reconstruct, alter, main- 254-6 2-82 SEC. 95.0127 hearing, the City Manager or his delegate shall cause a hearing to be set not less than five (5). nor more than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of receipt of the request and shall in wnting, provide notification of the hearing to the applicant by means of registered mail, certi- fied mail or hand delivery. The notification shall include the date, time and place of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted b) a hearing officer selected by the City Manager. The appli- cant may have the assistance of counsel or may appear by counsel and shaU have the right to present evidence. In the event that the applicant or counsel representing the applicant fails to appear at the hearing, the evidence of the existence of facts which constitute grounds for removal shall be considered unrebutted. A written copy of the hearing officer's decision shall be furnished to the owner of the letrering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice or his designated representa- tive. The decision of the hearhg officer shall be final and non appealable. Any lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice which has been properly removed under this section may be returned to the owner upon payment by the owner to the City of the Administrative cost of removal, as determined by the City Manager or his delegate. If no timely request is made for a hearing or if no demand is made for the return of the materials removed, within 30 days of the date of removal, then the City Manager or his delegate is e /, authorized to destroy or dispose of the removed materials. (Old Sec. 95.0126 - SlGNS OVER PUBLIC PROPERTY -Amended 9-3-53 by Ord. 5777 -\ N.S.) (Amended 8-17-54 by Ord. 6231 N.S.) 6' . *. 'IC (Renumbered 3-20-56 by Ord. 6897 N.S.) id - (Repealed 3-6-73 by Ord. 11000 N.S.) (New Sec. 95.0126 -Added 3-6-73 by Ord. 11000 N.S.) (Amended 11-12-75 by Ord. 11718 N.S.) (Amended 1-25-82 by Ord. 0-15659 N.S.) ' .' L' - (,I :% I< '. SEC. 95.0127 PENALTIES Upon conviction, any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and such person may be punished by a fine of 5500 or by imprison- ment in the County Jail for not more than six months. (Old Sec. 95.0127 - ELECTRlC SlGNS - Renumbered 3-20-56 by Ord. 6897 N.S.) (Repealed 3-6-73 by Ord. 11000 N.S.) (New Sec. 95.0127 - Added 3-6-73 by Ord. 11000 N.S.) I 1 i 5 4 C c s E $ 1C 11 1s 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.20 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 18.20.080 TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF UNSAFE, ILLEGAL OR ABANDONED SIGNS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUMMARY ABATEMENT OF SIGNS LOCATED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR WHICH CAUSE AN IMMEDIATE PERIL TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 18, Chapter 18.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section 18.20.080 to read as follows: 18.20.080 Removal of unsafe. illeaal or abandoned signs. (a) Whenever any sign or part thereof other than those referred to in subsection (b) is erected or maintained in violation of the provisions of this chapter or whenever any sign is in a condition to be in danger of falling or is a menace to the safety of persons or property, the building official shall give written notice to the permittee, owner or person in charge of the sign. Such written notice shall specify the nature of the violation, order the cessation thereof and require either the removal of the sign or the execution of remedial work in the time and in the manner specified by the notice. The time for removal shall be not less than 15 nor more than 30 calendar days from the date of the mailing of the notice. Within 10 days of the date of mailing the notice the permittee, owner or person in charge of the sign may request a hearing before the building official or his designee. The hearing shall be limited to whether the sign was erected or maintained in violation of this chapter or whether the condition of the sign is dangerous to the safety of persons or property. Upon receipt of a written request for a hearing the building official shall schedule a hearing and send written notice by first class mail of the time, place, and date for the hearing. After the hearing the building official may affirm, modify or revoke the order to remove or repair. The time for compliance with the original order shall be stayed during the pendency of the hearing. Whenever the permittee, owner or person in charge of the sign fails to comply with an order of the building official made pursuant to this section the building official may remove or alter the sign so that it conforms to the provisions of this chapter and chapter 21.41. The expense of such action by the building official shall be /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 charged to the permittee, owner or person in charge of the sign. Such amount shall constitute a debt owned to the City. No permit shall thereafter be issued to any permittee, owner or person in charge of a sign who fails to pay such costs. Any costs, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City in collection of the costs shall be added to the amount of the debt. notice of any kind placed upon public property or on any curb, sidewalk, post, pole, lamp post, hydrant, bridge, tree or other surface located on public property in violation of the provisions of this code or any sign which constitutes an immediate peril to persons or property may be removed without prior notice by any officer or employee of the City of Carlsbad designated to do so by the City Manager. For the purposes of this subsection public property shall include any public right-of-way. subsection (b) of this section is posted or caused to be posted in violation of Section 18.20.050 of this chapter and the City (b) Any lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or (c) (1) When a sign or other matter specified in has incurred any /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// expense in removing the sign-or other matter-or la. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 n 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in repairing public property damaged because of the posting of the sign or other matter, the building official may send a bill to the person responsible for posting or causing to be posted the sign or other matter for the actual or estimated cost of removal. Any such expense incurred shall constitute a debt owed to the City. The building official may establish administrative regulations to govern the billing procedures. Each bill shall include the cost both direct and indirect involved in the removing of the signs or other matter and in administering the billing procedure. The bill shall describe the basis of the amount billed by indicating the number of signs or other matter posted illegally, the time necessary for removal, the hourly cost for removal, the right to a hearing and other relevant information. The bill shall also specify a date by which the bill is to be paid which date shall be not less than ten business days after the bill is mailed. (2) Every person billed may request a hearing pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Following the hearing the building official shall within ten business days after the date of the hearing notify the person billed of any adjustment to the bill or any determination not to make an adjustment. This notification shall specify the date by which such bill shall be paid which date shall in no event be less than thirty calendar days after the date of the hearing. sign or other matter in violation of the provisions of section 18.20.050 of this code who fails to pay the amount billed such person for such violation within the period specified in this section shall also be liable for expenses incurred by the City in collecting the debt, including the cost of paying City employees or other persons engaged in the debt collection. (4) In any civil action involving any person, firm or corporation, or the chairman, president or other head of any committee or organization for violation of any of the provisions of section 18.20.050 proof that the sign or other matter contains the name of or otherwise identifies such person, firm or corporation, or the particular committee or organization involved shall constitute prima facie evidence that the person, firm, corporation or chairman, president or other head of the committee or organization involved posted, or caused to be posted, such sign or other matter. poster, sign or notice of any kind placed upon public property, or constituting an immediate peril to persons or property, which has been removed by an officer or employee of the City without prior notice to the owner pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section may request a hearing conducted by the building official or his designee. The request for hearing shall be made in writing to the building official no later than fifteen calendar days from the date the building official mails the billing statement specified in subsection (c) of this section or within thirty calendar days of the date of the removal whichever occurs first. The hearing shall be limited to determining whether the lettering, advertisement, card, poster, (3) Any person posting or causing to be posted a (d) The owner of any lettering, advertisement, card, 2. /7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sign or notice was located upon public property in violation of the provisions of this chapter or constituted an immediate peril to persons or property and the accuracy of the amount billed. Upon receiving a written request for hearing the building official or his designee shall set a hearing not less nor more than thirty calendar days from the date of receipt of the request and shall provide written notification of the hearing to the applicant. The notification shall include the date, time and place of the hearing. The decision of the hearing officer shall be final and non-appealable. Any lettering, advertisement, card, poster, sign or notice which has been properly removed under this section may be returned to the owner upon payment to the City of the costs of removal as specified in subsection (c) of this section. If no timely request is made for hearing or if no demand is made for the return of the materials removed the building official or his desnignee is authorized to destroy or dispose of the removed material. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the day of , 1982, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: MARY H. CASLER, Mayor ATTEST : ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) 3.