CC Min 2007-04-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

M/S Foust/Ira to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote by those present. Public Comment: Clem Molony, environmental safety manager from Lyngso Garden Materials, stated that he thought staff took a wise approach to the proposed ordinance and sees it as a clean up of older legalistic issues from the 1999 ordinance. Representing Lyngso, he stated that the main objective is to encourage signs that are functional, proportional in scale, and architecturally compatible with adjacent structures. Dennis Zell, Law Office of Fogarty & Zell, LLP (Nano Maldonado, gave his time to Dennis Zell), representing Nano Maldonado a lifelong resident of Redwood City, stated their concerns about how the proposed sign ordinance will effect his client's ability to post any offsite commercial messages on his billboard at his warehouse, which is located along the 101. Currently, Mr. Maldonado can only post an onsite commercial message for his own business or advertisements for political candidates. He stated that they do not think the City's regulations should be stricter than state regulations M/S Foust/Aguirre to close the public hearing. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote by those present. Council comments began with questions on the number of billboards in the City; variances regarding onsite commercial messages versus offsite commercial messages; the recommendation to exempt billboards within 660 feet of the freeways since they are covered under state law (and thereby ceding their regulatory right ); billboards in agricultural or landscaped areas and light and heavy industrial areas; upgrading to a large TV -type screen versus billboards; vested, legal rights; enforcement and funding to reduce clutter and illegal temporary signs; roof signs; legal concerns about property rights; and closing comments. Principal Planner Jany estimated that there are currently about a dozen billboards in the City and there have been no billboards approved since at least the late 1960s and early 1970s. Therefore, he concluded that the old 1968 ordinance did not allow billboards. Regarding the questions about roof signs that are visible from aircraft, he stated that they currently do not see a need to regulate them. Council expressed their concerns and suggestions that the amortization schedule be increased and they modify the part regulating billboards, remove reference to use and prohibit construction at this time, and do more outreach to the community and business owners. City Attorney Yamamoto recommended that Council adopt a rule that applies evenly across the board so that people can determine whether or not it will apply to them or not. He stated that the effort to amend the sign ordinance has been JOINT CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND APRIL 23, 2007 PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES PAGE 9 MINUTE BOOK NO. 61 Page No. 385