|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Livermore City Council has upheld a previously approved ordinance banning temporary signs in the public right-of-way that is set to go into effect on Saturday (July 1).
All signs — including campaign signs and real estate open house signs — will no longer be permitted to occupy space on city streets, sidewalks and intersections. However, the ban does not impact the allowance of signs on private property.
The topic of the ban was contentious. Several public commenters spoke out during the council’s June 12 meeting, some in support of a total ban and others in favor of a modified restriction proposed by city staff that would have allowed temporary commercial and noncommercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of city streets outside the downtown area from Thursdays to Mondays.
Staff said their recommendation came after researching federal and state sign standards, sign standards from nearby cities and engaging with the real estate industry.
The Planning Commission was also on board with a less restrictive approach to the ban. Prior to the council meeting, the commission voted in May to recommend that the City Council approve staff’s proposed standards with one modification, which would extend the allowance for signs from Sunday night to Monday morning. Staff supported the modification and included it in the proposed amendment.
Former Livermore councilmember Trish Munro — who was part of the previous council that initially voted to enact the full ban — expressed support for continuing with it as planned, citing environmental impact and the divisiveness created by political signs.
“Environmental impact simply can’t be ignored and the divisiveness is something that has been growing and takes away from the ability to have conversations about what it means to be an elected official.” Munro said.
“We need to be looking at what works for creating community and what works for sustainability going forward,” she added.
Members of the real estate community in attendance agreed with city staff and the Planning Commission.
“This is an issue of contrast, one of the contrasts is you have this huge issue about campaign signs, highly visible. At the same time in that shadow, there are are a lot of temporary signs that, as acknowledged by your staff and the Planning Commission, aren’t causing problems — real estate open house signs are an example of signs that aren’t causing problems, garage sale signs which, are soon to be illegal if you don’t take action quickly, are not causing problems,” said David Stark, chief public affairs and communications officer for the Bay East Association of Realtors.
He continued, “The other contrast is timing. We know that the next big thing that’s going to trigger this issue will be the election coming up in about a year and a half, well there’s also something coming up July 1 that could make a whole bunch of signs that aren’t causing problems illegal — as much as we’d like things to go back to the way they were, you can’t.”
He noted in his remarks that temporary signs that are not causing problems shouldn’t be criminalized.
John Stein, a former planning commissioner, acknowledged that political signs in recent election years have been “carpeting the city”. However, he agreed with the staff recommendation to make the ban less restrictive but with the suggestion that the requirement for Thursday to Monday signs be suspended for the month of October during elections.
“A first-time candidate needs name recognition and generally has limited budget and limited volunteers and the requirement for signs to be removed and replaced would place an unfair burden on people who are running a small campaign not only for city council elections but also school board elections, park district elections, and even Zone 7,” Stein said, noting that suspending the time restriction for a month before voting day would help to “level the playing field”.
After public comment, Vice Mayor Brittni Kiick doubled down on the need for a full ban. “This isn’t about whether it’s a political sign or whether it’s real estate. For me, this is about being in alignment with the goals we set as a city as a whole,” she said.
“I do not feel that this ordinance — or allowing these temporary signs — is following our goals of being a leader in climate action. For that reason, although I think it will be different and frustrating, I would like to see a total ban go into effect on July 1,” she added.
Acknowledging that he disagreed with a total ban in the past, Councilmember Bob Carling said that he now agrees with Kiick and is in favor of the sign ban due to the environmental impacts of people having to drive around in cars and emitting more greenhouse gasses to pick them up — and particularly city staff who have to spend time collecting them when the owners of the signs do not do it themselves — as well as the fact that the plastic campaign signs are not recyclable and end up contributing to the landfills.
“As much as I was against the proposal on the last council, I would hope that we can allow the current ordinance to go into effect July 1,” Carling said.
Councilmember Ben Barrientos was the only one on the dais who was against continuing with the ban as planned. He said he agreed with the comments made earlier by Stein and noted that there are likely ways to make recyclable campaign signs and that the city could require political campaigns and realtors to use recyclable signs.
“Just because some cities say ‘OK no more signs around here,’ doesn’t mean we have to do it,” he said.
Mayor John Marchand echoed sentiments shared by Carling and Kiick. “This is not about democracy. This isn’t about freedom of speech. It’s about reducing urban blight — visual blight in the landscape — and it’s about reducing impacts on staff,” he said. He also noted that in his own experience, he’s been on successful campaigns that did not put up a single sign.
Although Marchand thanked and applauded city staff and the Planning Commission for their work to research and find alternatives to the total ban, he supported moving forward with the current plan.
With no motion to approve staff’s recommendation, the council took no action that night and thereby keeping in place the previously approved full ban.
City of Pleasanton should also enact this same law.
Those signs make the neighborhoods and the city look trashy.
City of Pleasanton should NOT enact the same law. Many residents of Pleasanton have garage & yard sales. This would prevent them from setting up temporary signs for their sales. Kids who put up Lemonade & Cookie stands would not be able to set up signs, either. People who have lost a pet, would not be able to post “lost pet” notices.
The Livermore law is too restrictive.
The police before there reduction in services have been in my neighborhood removing yard sale signs from stop signs, and other traffic signage. They haven’t bothered with kids’ lemonade sale signs.
Michael, if the signs are stand alone signs or on trees, Pleasanton will leave them alone. They will only remove them if they are attached to city or other municipality property.