The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOB 2 BANNER DISPLAYS 08-07-89TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJEGT: POLES/STANDARDS FOR BANNER DISPLAYS RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND: At the June 19th City Council meeting, staff was directed to outline several locations that might be utilized for banner displays similar to the installation on Main Street between Prospect Avenue and Preble Drive. Attached for your information are copies of previous memos pertaining to this matter as follows: * Engineering Division memo dated 6-12-89 * City Attorney memo dated 5-30-89 * Engineering Division memo dated 4-25-89 * Engineering Division memo dated 8-24-88· DISCUSSION: Staff has identified four potential locations for the proposed installations as follows: 1. First Street at approximately mid-block between "B" Street and "C" Street. 2. Irvine Boulevard approximately 400-500 feet easterly of Prospect Avenue. 3. Newport Avenue at approximately mid-block between Holt Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. 4. Red Hill Avenue at approximately mid-block between Sycamore Avenue and Walnut Avenue. ~-~ These four locations provide exposure on two east-west streets and two north-south streets which carry substantial amounts of traffic both through and within the community. The mid-block locations were recommended so that motorists would be less distracted than at a street intersection either signalized or non-signalized, and so as not to block visibility to the traffic control devices at a signalized intersection. The actual installation of any banners for various events should be completed during the non-peak traffic hours or perhaps on weekends to minimize disruption to the traffic flows on the major streets. POLES/STANDARD FOR BANNER DISPLAYS JULY 31, 1989 PAGE 2 Estimated cost for each pole/standard installation location is as follows: First Street - $6400.00 Irvine Boulevard - $7000.00 Newport Avenue - $6400.00 Red Hill Avenue - $7000.00 The upcoming 1989-90 budget currently under consideration by the city council does not include any funding for any of these installations. The selected site(s) will require a supplemental budget appropriation. It is requested that the city council indicate at which site(s) they wish to have the banner display poles installed. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: 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 DATE: P.~Y 30, '1989 ~~y · Il&C[ I ROBERT LEDENDECKER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINP. ER CHRIS SHINGLETONw DIRECTOR OF CO~LqUNITY DHVBLOPHENT TO: FROM: S UBJ ECT: CITY ATTORNEY R~S~,ZC~ZNO mua~ ON CZ~ ~O~S OR s~mma~Ds ~ ~a~ ~O~CING PUBLIC ~~S SUCH '~ TIGER'S DAY A~ THE ~ ca~ c~o~ ~ 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 commercial 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. (Gonza.les v, s.up.er!or. Court, 180 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1124-1126.) Therefore, an absolute prohibition on displaying signs on public property can be valid (City counci.1 v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)), while a partial prohibition is not. (Gonzales v. Superior Court, sup..ra, 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 o__f Sa___p_n F.rancisc0. v. Bller .... Outdoor Adve.rtisinq, 192 Cal.App.3d 643, 664 (1987) and John Donnelly _& Sons v.. Campbe!!, 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 'Tiller's Day' and 'Chili 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. CITY ATTORNEY CLARK F. IDE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CFI :cj :C2155 cc: W. Huston ii DATE: APRIL Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM 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 t. he 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 ta 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 DATE: August 24, · t · ' I I IIIII I II Inter-..Com FROM: Bob I~dendecker, 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 Strait £or banner display, At i~ my r~coll~ction ~hat =h~ pole/standard in~uallation would'be a separate installation and not included wi~h ~he utility undurgrounding along First Stre~. The utility und~rgrounding contract was not a city pro]act, but one administered by ~he Southern California Edison Company. The proposed pole tns~alla~ions on Ftra~ S=rea~ will differ from'Chose in~all~d on Main S=r~ ~a~=~rly of Prospect Av~nu~ du~ =o =he addi~lonal wtd~ (c~b ~o curb) of 28 f~e= on Fir~= S=r~a~. 'Thi~ additional width will no= allow ~a uae of ~a salvaged marbali=e ~raffic signal standards aa used on Main S=ra~C, bu= wall r~ir~ =he ua~ of ~wo ~aal poles a~ each loca~ion. The ~s=ima=~d co~= of ~e pole installs:ion a= each location ts $6~400.00. Prior. =o proceeding wi~ any ins=alia:ion, the following should be flnaliz~d by ~a Cl=y Co~cil: '· 1. Desired location Of each pole installation and number of locations desired. 2. Supplemental 1sas-as budget appropriation of $6,400.00 for each desired location. If ~he Council desires to proceed with t. he pole installation(s), At will be necessary to prepare a plan ana specification package for formal bidding. This process should take about 3 months ~o bid award. Bob L~dendecker Dtrsctor of l~blic Works/City Engineer BL;mv