Laserfiche WebLink
SABINE & MORRISON <br /> ATFORNEYS AT LAW <br /> <br /> 110 Juniper St. · PO Box 421318 <br /> San Diego CA 92142-1318 <br /> Tel.: 619.234.2864 · Fax: 619.342.4136 <br /> <br /> November 7, 2002 <br /> <br /> Damien Brower, Esq. <br /> Office of the Redwood City Attorney <br /> 1017 Middlefield Rd. <br /> Redwood City CA 94063 <br /> by fax: 650.780.5963, and first class mail <br /> <br /> re: consultation - sign regulation <br /> <br /> Dear Mr. Brower: <br /> <br />Thank you for calling me today to say that Redwood City is interested in having me consult with <br />you and staff on certain current issues in sign regulation. <br /> <br />From our conversation, I understand those issues to be: <br /> The City would like to accommodate a group of car dealers who want a sign on City <br /> property indicating their name, brands sold, related logos, and direction information. <br /> The City (or its Redevelopment Agency) would like to formulate a policy for downtown <br /> banners (on city-owned street lamp posts, I assume), as part of a revitalization project <br /> centered on an old theater which is now presenting live stage acts; ideally the banners <br /> would include identification of commercial sponsors. <br />® The City desires a program for signage that would direct travelers to specific businesses. <br /> <br />The overarching concern is whether these goals can be accomplished in a manner that would <br />minimize the legal risk in the event the City must defend its sign ordinance against a <br />constitutional challenge. I can guide you and the City in this regard, and believe that most aspects <br />of these goals can be reached in a constitutional manner. <br /> <br />On item one, I understand you have prepared a proposed draft and a report, and that you would <br />like a review and analysis of constitutionality, as well as any suggestions on how to strengthen <br />the car dealer program. On the other two items, I understand that so far these are discussion items <br />only, and that no drafting has yet been done. <br /> <br />Because courts apply a relaxed rule of standing in First Amendment litigation, challengers often <br />attack the entire sign ordinance, rather than just the portions which affect their signage. (For a <br />recent and sobering example of a broad attack by local retailers, see North Olmsted Chamber of <br />Commerce v. City of North Olmsted, 86 FS2d 755 (ND OH, 2000), in which the city's desires to <br />amortize pole signs along a freeway resulted in total invalidation, plus a fee award). Typically the <br /> <br /> <br />