October 19, 2003
(Updated) Tinkering With City's Sign Code, But Not Without Questions Being Raised
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
While I've occassionally covered issues regarding the City's sign code and how it impacts community murals, I seem to have missed this item in The Oregonian earlier this month about the possible deal that Commissioner Leonard apparently has been quietly forging:
The latest effort to resolve Portland's regulation of billboards, murals and wall signs is a negotiated settlement that critics call a bad backroom deal, but backers say will resolve decades-old disputes.
A draft of the proposed settlement to cover the next 20 years negotiated by Commissioner Randy Leonard with billboard giant Clear Channel includes an end to litigation that has Portland facing a $1 million-plus legal judgment and a net 10 percent reduction in the total number of billboards.
But the settlement faces critical questions from Mayor Vera Katz, public art proponents and neighborhood activists about its workability, the process it's following, how murals would fare and whether Portland will end up cluttered with billboards.
...
Key settlement points include: a citywide cap of 546 billboards; Clear Channel's paying $125,000 for 76 permits in ongoing litigation plus another $375,000; an annual per-billboard fee of $45; removal of all billboard structures from residential zones; allowing rotating tri-vision billboards on as many as one-third of the billboard inventory; and the establishment of billboard-free zones. Clear Channel, which has gained permission to negotiate on behalf of five much smaller sign companies, also would donate seven wall locations for a community mural bank.
The article also reports that Leonard is working to "exempt wall signs less than 300 square feet" from either fees or number caps, and provide fee waivers for signs based upon volunteer labor, an approach geared towards allowing things such as community murals.
According to the article, Clear Channel seems hopeful about the deal; a member of a City Club committee on sign regulations questions its seeming "back room" nature; and one of the heads of Metro Murals wishes Leonard had simply cleared the way for community murals.
I'm not sure where this all stands now, since the article is from October 9. I swear I saw a reference to "tri-vision" signs somewhere earlier this week, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. I'm certain it was a reference to this deal on the City's sign code.
Update
See the comments to this item for a response from Commissioner Leonard.
Comments (1)
Randy Leonard on 20 Oct 2003
B!X-
Actually, I have included as many people who have expressed an interest in resolving the mural/billboard/sign controversy as has asked to meet with me. As a result Metro Murals (a group of artists that paint wall murals) has been very involved and we have incorporated many of their suggestions in our working document/draft. I have met with the Mayor (she is adamantly opposed to Bill Boards) in an ongoing attempt to include her suggestions in the draft. I met with members of the City Club who are concerned about billboards.
This all comes about, as you may recall, as a result of the city ordering two small business's on SE Division to paint over their Murals (they violated the provisions of the sign code that are intended to get to billboards but constitutionally the city cannot distinguish between billboards/wall murals). At that time I communicated to you and other news outlets that I would attempt to legalize the murals. These negotiations are my attempt to fulfill that commitment ....Randy Leonard