Planning Commission Approves Sign Ordinance

Businesses in Belmont that plan to add illuminated signs or citizens with more than one flag pole on their property may soon be forced, along with many others, to heed a new set of rules regarding signs in the city.

The Belmont Planning Commission voted 4-1 Tuesday night to approve an amendment to the zoning ordinance which regulates how signs can be displayed on public property.

The Planning Commission began hosting study sessions  in September 2009 to discuss how the amendment should be drafted. Since then, 11 other meetings and public outreach sessions have been held before the Commission granted its approval of a recommendation that City Council adopt the amended ordinance.

The 61-page document spells out the way signs are to be displayed within the boundaries of Belmont. Restrictions and exemptions pertaining to signs including those that are illuminated, for retail or private purposes, banner announcements and a variety of others are addressed in it.

Commissioner Kristin Mercer emphasized that the ordinance will only affect new signs in Belmont, not signs that already exist, and that the majority of existing permanent signs in Belmont will not fall within the new standards.

And though sighs of relief were finally breathed as the amended ordinance passed -- the matter was continued at at least two previous meetings -- Tuesday night's meeting was not without its contentious moments.

Commission Vice Chair Eric Reed was the sole dissenting vote against the recommendation to City Council, citing his concerns that the amended ordinance may violate the First Amendment. 

Reed said the ordinance's ban on mobile signs of which the sole purpose of the vehicle is to display an advertisement is too restrictive.

"My own personal belief is that this is a way to limit free speech," he said. "And I don't see a sign ordinance as an appropriate way to do it."

Commissioner Robert Mayer admitted he agreed with Reed regarding reservations about the over zealous nature of the ordinance's restrictions, but not enough to support his vote in dissent.

"I do share some concerns, but on the whole, I've come to reconcile that we need some reasonable means of controlling those expressions," he said.

Mercer disagreed with Reed's comments, and said she felt the document was legally sound and drafted to withstand scrutiny regarding any possible complaints about free speech restrictions. She said the ordinance will not restrict businesses from advertising their companies on their vehicles.

Mayer also expressed his frustrations with the ordinance in relation to how it will be enforced.

He requested that the ordinance, should it be passed by City Council, would direct city staff to follow-up a year later in order to gauge how residents and business owners are adhering to the new regulations.

"We have this law in place, what are we achieving by not enforcing it?" he asked rhetorically.

He cited Walgreen's on El Camino Real as a retailer that currently repeatedly violates the ordinance.

Chair Rick Frautschi disagreed with any suggestion that the new ordinance include instruction on how it be enforced, and said that should be left to the City Council. He suggested that if Mayer is concerned about implementation, he should communicate that to City Council as a private citizen, but that the commission should not sponsor any such enforcement suggestions.

"It's the Council's job to tweak [the ordinance] if they don't like it, and it's certainly their responsibility to enforce it," said Frautschi.

Community Development Manager Carlos de Melo suggested that the city's staff report to City Council include Mayer's concerns regarding enforcement to ensure they are addressed.

Mercer seconded Frautschi's unwillingness to support an enforcement recommendation, and said she believed it ultimately would be appropriately managed.

City Council is expected to consider the Sign Ordinance at its meeting Jan. 26, said de Melo.

The amended ordinance includes recommendations that all illuminated signs are shut off from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m., unless otherwise exempt. The recommendation does not include restrictions on how bright illuminated signs may be, as was previously discussed at earlier meetings.

Other restrictions in the ordinance include allowing only one flag pole per lot, requiring that holiday decorations on private property may only be displayed for 45 days at the most, and banning any "attention-getting devices" including banners, balloons or streamers that are designed to be moved by the wind.

Mercer said the new ordinance will only apply to existing temporary signs and those installed after an approval by City Council, should it be enacted. All existing permanent signs will be grandfathered into compliance.

To see the proposed ordinance, which does not include amendments made at Tuesday night's meeting, click here.