The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 3 BANNER DISP'S 06-19-89TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SU~EGT: POLES/STANDARDS FOR BANNER DISPLAYS RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND: At their May 1, 1989 meeting, the City Council referred this item to the City Attorney's office for his review and opinion with regards to the the concern raised by the Community Development Department on the rights of a governmental body to distinguish between a. use for non- profit/commercial and profit/commercial type advertising for this type of signing. For the City Council's reference and information, attached are copies of two previous staff memos on this item dated 6/24/88 and 4/25/89. DISCUSSION: Per the attached memo from the City Attorney's office, it is his conclusion that the City can allow such public event banners on its poles and standards while prohibiting commercial banners. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv FROH: CITI' ATTOIU~Y S UBJ ECT: RESTRICTING BANNEI~ ON CITY POLES OR STANDARDS TO THOSE ANNOUNCING PUBLIC EVENTS SUCH AS TILLER'S DAY AND THE cH*rL COOKO ' ' . You have indicated a concern with allowing non-profit organizations to display banners on City poles and standards announcing public events such as 'Tiller's Day' and 'Chili Cookoff', while prohibiting conunercial organizations from using these same City poles and standards. Generally speaking, any restriction on the display of signs must be content neutral and cannot be subject to the unfettered discretion of a City official. (Gonzales v, Superior Court, 18.0 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1124-1126.) Therefore, an absolute prohibition on .displaying signs on public property can be valid (City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; 466 U.S. 789 (1984)), while a partial prohibition, is not. (Gon..zale.s ~i- Super./or. Court, Supra, 180 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1125-1126.) .. Although a ban on signs on public property generally must be content neutral, there are certain limited exceptions. While prohibiting other signs, a sign ordinance is still valid even if it permits certain signs such as public notices and traffic control devices to be posted on public property. (See, for example, City and County of San Francisco v. Eller Outdoor Ad.ye.rtisinq, 192 Cal.App.3d 643, 664 (1987) and John_.Donnelly & Sons v. Campbell,. 639 Fed.2d 6, 9 (1980).) As explained in the Donnelly case, supra, signs showing' the place and time of meetings, services and events of religious, civic, philanthropic and Other public organizations, and, of course, for voter information for elections, primaries and referenda, reflect the important governmental interest in dissemination of information of special public concern. These kinds of exceptions do not change a sign ordinance into one that is not content neutral. Inter-Com to R. Ledendecker and C. Shingleton Page' 2 May 30, 1989 Applying the same reasoning to banners for WTiller~s Dayw and WChili Cookoff", it would appear that these are announcements of public events that would not destroy the content neutrality of banning all other 'signs from public poles and standards. For this reason, we conclude that the City. can allow such public event banners on its poles and standards while prohibiting commercial banners. If you have any further questions .concerning this matter, please advise. CIT~ ATTOI~NEY CLARK F. IDE DEP~P~Y CITY ATTOI~NEY CFI :cj :C2155 cc: W. Huston Inter- Corn o. :!.989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLI2~M HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION POLES/STANDARDS FOR BANNER DISPLAYS RECOMMENDATION; Pleasure of the City Council. · BACKGROUND ~ Attached is a copy of a staff memo dated August 24, 1988 referencing potential pole/standard installations for First Street- This report explained the need to utilize steel poles in lieu of the marbelite type poles' used on Main Street due to the additional street width. DISCUSSION ~ For any proposed locations on streets wider than First Street (84 feet · curb to curb), the poles will have to be upsized, resulting in a slight increase in the estimated cost. A summary of these costs are recapped below: · First Street and other streets of the same width - estimated cost is $6,400.00 for. each pair of poles. · For streets of a width greater than First Street, estimated cost is $7,000.00 for each pair of poles. Prior to proceeding with any installation~, the following needs to be finalized by the City Council: 1. Desired location of each pole installation and number of locations desired. 2. Supplemental FY 88-89 budget appropriation for the desired installations. Additionally, the Community Development- Department 'has surfaced a concern regarding a recent court case that does not allow a governmental body to distinguish between a use for non-profit/commercial and profit/ commercial type advertising for this.type of signing. In the event the City Council desires to proceed with these installations, it is suggested that prior to proceeding, the City Attorney's office review said court case and provide the Council a summary of the impacts of said case. The plan/specification preparation and formal bid process will still take about three months to complete. Bob Ledendecker · Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: Christine Shingleton TO: Williaa Huston, City Manager FROM: Bob Ledandecker, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: First Street Poles for Banner Displays In response to Councilman Prescott,s inquiry on the placement of poles/standards on First Street for banner 'display, it is my recollection that ~he pole/standard installation would'be a separate installation and not included wi~h ~he utility undergrounding along Pits= Street. The utility undergrounding contract was not a ¢~=y project, but one administer~db¥ ~he Southern California EdisonCompany. The proposed pole installations on First Street will differ from thos ( to curb) of 28 f~et. on First Street. This additional width will not allow ~he usa of the salvaged marbelite traffto signal standards as used on Main Street, but will requir~ the use of two steel poles at each location. Th~ est/mated cost of the pole installation at each location is $6,400.00.- Prior. to proceeding with .any finalized by the City Council. installation, the following should be e. 1. Desired location of each pole in~alla2ion and number o~ loCations desired. 2. Supplemental 1988-89 budget appropriation of $6,400 00 for each desired location. · If the Council desires to proceed with the pole installation(s), be necessary to prepare a plan and specification package for bidding. This process should take about 2 months to bid award. it will formal Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv