Honolulu has many scenic assets that set it apart, even with the rapid development of the urban core. If the City Council were to willingly sacrifice one of them, it would leave a lasting imprint, and not a pretty one.

The city’s ordinance governing signs — their dimensions and number — is among the smartest policy decisions the Council has ever made. Residents owe the absence of billboards and other elements of “sign clutter” in part to The Outdoor Circle, the nonprofit which 90 years ago led the effort to enact Hawaii’s first signage laws.

Now there’s a measure, introduced in 2015 but revived in the current Council cycle, that includes a section to weaken that protection. A public hearing was held in November, but discussion about the signs bubbled up again in the past week at Honolulu Hale.

Bill 79 contains various language amendments, many of them housekeeping fixes, to the city Land Use Ordinance. But at least the part expanding allowances for signs, Section 20 of the measure, should be stripped out.

The Outdoor Circle rightly argues that no changes be made to the signage ordinance when the Zoning and Housing Committee, chaired by Councilwoman Kymberly Pine, takes up the bill again in March.

Various aspects of the legislation are troubling:

>> Resort-zoned properties would still be allowed a ground-level “garden sign” at each entrance to the property as well as a wall sign, but the allowable size of each type would double from 12 square feet to 24 square feet,

>> It also would increase permitted signage allowed in five other zoning categories: Neighborhood Business, Community Business, Community Business Mixed Use, Industrial and Industrial/Commercial Mixed Use. Here, the properties would be allowed to increase signs in size and number, eliminating the coverage limit to 15 percent of total wall space.

>> Finally, and perhaps most distressingly, this is the sort of change inappropriate for inclusion in an omnibus-type of bill to pass below the radar.

Kathy Whitmire, who co-chairs The Outdoor Circle’s public affairs committee, said a deadline had to be extended to revive the bill. That’s defensible for the purpose of giving the bill due consideration by Pine’s committee, a newly established panel replacing the old Zoning and Planning Committee.

But the process of changing an important city planning policy by burying the provision in a larger measure is, as Whitmire said, “less than transparent.”

The bill has garnered support from business interests, including Marriott Courtyard Oahu North Shore. The new hotel’s general manager, David Betham, called the current sign “insufficient and difficult for our guests to see.

“This is an irritant for guests who are staying at the hotel … our guests are often confused and miss the property.”

However, other North Shore businesses have managed within the current signage limits. And even if an individual business experiences this as a marketing challenge, it’s hardly enough reason to enact a countywide ordinance of this kind.

The result could be what opponents describe as “sign creep.” As signs grow larger and more numerous, each one vies for the attention of passers-by.

“The economy and quality of life here on Oahu have long benefited from our sign code that was designed to avoid the sign proliferation that mars the appearance of so many communities on the mainland,” said Choon James, one resident.

Honolulu should continue to stand firmly against erosions of its valuable sign ordinance. The golden goose of Oahu tourism is the island’s beauty, and any slippery-slope movement that diminishes its appearance could easily kill it.