Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1984 Planning Commission Minutes ! CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM~4ISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 1984 -.7:30 p.m. PLACE: Eommunity Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned ~eeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Present: Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Schaefer PUBLIC HEARING 1. C-209 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of Amendment of Sign Ordinance (Article 10), by adopting regulations for Temporary Political Signs, per Ordinance NS-3, Article 18 The City Attorney explained that the decision by the Supreme Court was only rendered recently. Up until then cities were pretty much standing by and waiting for the Supreme Court's word on the subject. The City already has a Political Sign Ordinance of sortS'; the problem was that it was never official- ly run through the Planning Commission. In additions, with the authority of the Vincent case, that decision made it very clear that the cities may now regulate these types of signs purely for aesthetic rc~asons. Up until now the regulation has been limited to safety'cOhs~derations, so a person could. not put a sign in a manner that would'obstruct traffic or obstruct visibility of information signs and signals, etc.' The Supreme Court made it very clear that it is a legitimate ground to regulate these sigr~s solely on the basis of visual clutter and aesthetic considerations, and that is a proper zoning objec- tive. With that, the ordinance that is before you may actually be broader if the Commission desires. We do prohibit the posting of temporary political signs on any public building and public ~ight-of-way, with the caveat that it cannot be ~n a public right-of-way in a manner that would restrict any visibility or traffic considerations. The City Attorney stated that he has drawn the line there, instead of an outright prohibit. ion on any utility pole which may be located in the right-of-way. The fact is that that would pretty much prohibit most utility poles throughout the City. He also made the obser- vation that there has not been a major p~oblem with political signs, with respect to people running for City CoUncil in Saratog'a. He commented that it has been his experience that the signs. have not been put up too early and they are promptly taken down. He added that he is rushing~ the ordinance through in this rather expedited manner, not because of any concern of Saratogans running for Office, but because of the coming ~national elections and the fact that he expects our City, as well as every other city in the State, to be inundated with signs dealing with the national e~lection,l~the~S~at~yw.i'd.~'pro.p'o'sa'lS, and · b~'ie-aily outsiders coming in and putting up the signs. Therefore, this ordi- nance states that no signs can be put UP more than sixty days before the elec- tion, but it does prohibit any sign to, be put on a utility pole which also contains any street sign or traffic signals, any public building, any location within a public right-of-way, any sidewalk, crosswalk, police or alarm system, or hydrant. He added that the step.beyond'this ordinance is to say that no sign may be posted on any public property or any public utility pole, if that is the position the Commission wishes .to take. Th~ public hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick asked if there is any place that speaks to the number of signs a person can have on one structure. The City Attorney stated that there isn't. He added that there is a fairly substantial body of decisionsl from the California Supreme Court which have dealt squarely with the issue of tree speech control of signage. While the Supreme Court has allowed sign restrictions on public property, the Cali- fornia Supreme Court has struck down local ordinances that restrict, for exam- ple, the total number of signs. 'To some extent we can ~e'gulate siie as long"as we don't discriminate as to the number of'square footage being allowed any parti- cular candidate or ballot measure. Discussion followed on this issueland on whether it should be a dismeanor or infraction for disrupting a political sign. The City Attorney commented that the issue is not addressed as to people des- troying other people's signs and putting.up their own. He stated that he would just as soon keep the City out of that kind of a hassle; our concern is the posting and removal of signs, not to act as a sort of local fair political - 1 - [.~ ..o .¢"P!anning Commission Page 2 ~&eting Minutes 9/4/94 ..- practices Commission. FIe added that he thinks there are other bodies that would have jurisdiction over that type of political behavior. Commissioner Burger asked if there are any guidelines from other Cities that might indicate that signs may not be erected more than 30 days prior to the election, rather than 60, as stated in the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that this derives from a California Supreme Court case that said that you can regulate periods before and after. He commented that other cities have had 60 days that have been upheld, and he simply used that as a guideline. He added th.at there is no court decision that he is aware of that would express- ly prohibit a shorter period. Discussion followed on subparagraph d-rega~.ding violation and removal and also on th~-.'si-ze-of signs.. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adopt Resolution No. C-209-1, recommending approval to the City Council, making the findings. Commissioner Harris second- ed the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0.. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Secr'etary RSS: cd