|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A 2002 Woodside ordinance on signage around town is in need of a refresh in light of a number of court decisions. The town ordinance limits the size and location of signs in town, but temporary signs — like holiday and light displays — and political signs don’t get the same treatment.
In 2015, the Supreme Court decided in Reed v. Gilbert that sign regulations should be equal for both temporary and political signs.
Town Council held a study session on March 26 to discuss possible revisions to the sign ordinance. Town Attorney Jean Savaree suggested changes in language to the current sign regulations.
Woodside’s political sign ordinance states that signs cannot be placed on public property or in the public right of way, must be 4 square feet, cannot be lighted and signs related to ballot items or candidates must be removed within 10 days after an election. The ordinance also allows for larger signs upon approval from the Planning Commission.
Current temporary sign regulations pertain to all holiday displays and light displays related to holidays. They can be set up 31 days before a holiday and must be taken down 14 days after a holiday. Temporary signs cannot exceed eight feet in height, per town code.
In addition to holiday decor, temporary signs include 6 square feet roadside signs on private property for nonprofit advertisements and for-sale signs, which both require permits. Construction signs are also within this category and are issued with building permits.
“You can see there’s a little bit of inconsistency in that holiday displays, you don’t need a permit for and others you do,” pointed out Savaree. “[Political sign] regulations are different than the regulations that you impose on temporary signs as they’re currently defined in your ordinance.”
Savaree’s proposed suggestions include removing the separate section on political signs and including them under the temporary sign regulations. She also suggested eliminating the 10-day post-election removal requirement. Additionally, she’d like to see holiday displays removed from the temporary sign category and remove permit requirements.
For size limitations, the proposed limit would be 4 square feet for signs within a residential district and 8 square feet within a commercial district. Savaree said that this difference in size limitations between different zones comes from the town having fewer concerns on preserving the rural beauty of Woodside in highly trafficked commercial areas.
Neighboring cities like Redwood City and Atherton treat political signs as a type of “non-commercial” sign and apply the same regulations to all non-commercial signs, according to a staff report. Others, such as Portola Valley, simply have no regulations specific to political signs.
Foster City is considering an amendment to its sign ordinance, according to Woodside staff. However, the ordinance already views political signs as part of the larger category of “temporary-noncommercial” signs. The amendment under consideration in Foster City would restrict the areas of the public right of way where political signs and other temporary noncommercial signs are currently allowed.
Savaree’s report to the Town Council states that “the town can impose restrictions on size, locations, and times that signs can be displayed, but the town cannot impose different restrictions on signs based on their messages.”
Council member Brian Dombkowski questioned this point, asking, “why not follow a Hillsborough or Portola Valley type of approach and just leave [regulations] undefined?”
Savaree explained that regulations are more informative to residents when it’s clearly defined what is and isn’t allowed for signage.
“We should be careful to eliminate ordinances that we don’t intend to enforce,” said resident Steve Lubin during public comment. “We should not make illegal what people do very regularly.”
Lubin also disagreed about the suggested regulation on signs over 8 feet tall. He encouraged the council to establish a time limit on when signs need to be taken down.
“I feel very strongly about needing to eliminate subjectivity,” Dombkowski said. “I think we need to support the rights of our citizens and our candidates to get their message out in a very finite period of time.”
Dombkowski said he agreed with most of the suggestions except for size limitations and asked for a 20 square feet limit rather than a 4 and 8 square feet limit. He also asked to strike language about prohibiting signs in the public right of way and eliminate the 8-foot height limit.
Council member Ned Fluet conversely believed that 4 square feet is a reasonable size for temporary signs.
“We live here because of this beautiful environment and just to see all the signs everywhere is kind of a bummer to drive down (Highway) 84 and see signs everywhere,” said Fluet. “The bigger they are, the more I think they don’t fit with our neighborhood.”
Mayor Jenn Wall said she agreed signs should be prohibited on public property, but that town officials should find a safe way for signs to be in the public right of way.
“I would like to find a way to time limit some of these signs,” she said.
Mayor Wall suggested looking into a further developed version of the current draft or exploring Atherton’s approach in categorizing signs into commercial, temporary and non-commercial as the council continues to revise the ordinance.
