Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears public opposition to proposed ASOZ expansion and digital signs on Masonic Temple
Summary
Caruso asked to expand the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone downtown and install two digital wall signs on the Masonic Temple. Staff recommended the zone text/map amendments and development agreement; neighbors raised historic preservation, light pollution and surveillance concerns. Council introduced related ordinances for later adoption.
Caruso representatives and city planning staff presented a proposal to expand the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) to include 230–238 S. Brand Boulevard and to authorize two non‑accessory digital wall signs on the restored Masonic Temple.
The proposal would add an ASOZ wall‑sign definition and a development agreement that includes annual public‑benefit payments and a phased amortization structure. Senior VP Chris Robertson said Caruso has been “part of this community now for about 2 decades” and described prior investments and ongoing revenue sharing with the city; he told council the company has paid the city several checks (staff noted recent payments of roughly $268,000 and $367,000 for earlier signage packages).
Residents, historic‑preservation advocates and transportation‑safety speakers urged denial or continuation for broader review. Core concerns included: installation on a building listed on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and under a Mills Act contract, potential driver distraction and light pollution, spot‑zoning and lack of clear limits on data collection from modern digital displays. “Large digital animated signs are a blight on our environment,” opponent Ellen Durham said during public comment.
Staff position and technical review: Planning staff recommended the map expansion and code amendments, noting an applicant‑supplied lighting study and historic analysis concluded minimal visual or material impacts and that the proposal meets ASOZ standards. Planning Commission recommended approval 4–0 prior to council review.
Fiscal note: the applicant indicated the two added signs could conservatively yield around $60,000 in city revenue (amortized over the developer's revenue sharing schedule) but said combined network payments to date approach the mid‑hundreds of thousands. Staff and council asked for clearer, independent revenue estimates and for constraints on ad content and refresh rates.
Council action: the council introduced the ordinances to amend the zoning text and map and to authorize the development agreement; adoption will be scheduled at a later meeting, allowing additional review and conditions to be drafted.
Next step: staff will work with the applicant to clarify guaranteed public benefits, content restrictions (e.g., tobacco/adult content exclusions), and technical limits on display brightness, refresh rates and data collection before the council considers final adoption.
