2012-04-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lai stated that the Code Review Committee met one week ago to discuss the proposed text amendment. A memo was then sent to the Plan Commission. Since the Code Review Committee meeting, and the distribution of Plan Commission material, a couple items were revised. At the Code Review Committee meeting, there was some concern about language regarding public safety. Mr. Lai stated that the City Attorney is present to answer any questions. The Code Review Committee asked to get an opinion from the City Attorney. The revised document provided includes the Code Review Committee recommendation in conjunction with the opinion of the City Attorney. Mr. Lai added that the issue is with placement of signs and having a better definition of where signs can be placed. At the Code Review Committee meeting, there was a question about public safety. Mr. Lai stated that it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the police can do whatever necessary for public safety. The language Mr. Halpert stated it was his understanding that the language proposed at the committee level gave too much discretion to the City as far as what is necessary to preserve public safety and that was the issue raised. He added that it was his understanding that the intent of the question was to figure out what was allowable and constitutional. He asked Mr. Paul Martin, the City Attorney, to explain the legal analysis. Mr. Martin stated that it came about because of an incident involving removal of signs on the past election day, following the City Ordinance. This created potential conflict with first amendment rights. He added that when a limited public forum is established, people may come to that forum to express viewpoints without ordinances telling them they cannot. Candidates, supporters, or opponents may come to those locations and display signs for people who are voting to see. Limited public forum means that people can do this on those specific days, times, and places. The challenge in this case was to craft an exception to the ordinance that would permit placement of signs so there were no inconsistencies with sign ordinance and the limited public forum. The first attempt included strikethrough language, that a prohibition will not be enforced on any election day to the extent of preserving public safety. Mr. Martin added that after further thought, some new language was proposed and that is what was distributed to you. The new language states that the prohibition will not be enforced on any election day in any sign display area. Mr. Martin explained that the sign display area was the area within 5 feet of walkways and/or driveways, etc. This excludes any area within 25 feet of the door to the polling place, which is in accordance with State law. Mr. Martin added that he had some additional thoughts including possibly addressing the size of signs if someone were to set up a large sign obstructing the view of drivers. Perhaps language could be added addressing temporary signs on public land that would limit the size. Mr. martin stated that another possible change would be to add an exclusion for any area within 10 feet of public right-of-way to prevent display of signs that are technically within the sign display area but also in the public right-of-way that could block the view of drivers. Ms. Moran asked about the original wording that addressed public safety and if there is any discretion given for public safety if a sign were to fall down or block the line of sight. Mr. Martin stated that generally sign codes already address issues like that and assumed it is in the Code. tm; E