Commission studies sign‑code rewrite; debate centers on limits for temporary and political signs

At a study session the Planning Commission reviewed draft amendments to the city sign code prepared by staff. Associate Planner Gopika Nair framed the changes as an effort to align the code with federal case law (Reed v. Town of Gilbert), to clarify construction and temporary‑sign rules (size, height, quantity, duration), to spell out prohibited sign types and to add luminance thresholds for illuminated signs. The draft would also exempt city‑posted signs from permit procedures and add express regulation for construction signs on private properties.

Commissioners questioned the numeric caps embedded in the draft (two signs at up to four square feet each for temporary/construction signs) and discussed whether the existing two‑sign rule for campaign/noncommercial signs is legally safe or too restrictive. Commissioners cited legal precedents (Baldwin v. Redwood City, Arlington County case law) and weighed enforcement practicality, public aesthetics and free‑speech constraints. Gopika Nair said the city attorney had reviewed the draft and that staff would return with research on peer jurisdictions and options for modest increases or alternate approaches. "By treating all noncommercial signs, including campaign signs, nonprofit group affiliation signs, and student graduation signs, equally, this revision eliminates content based distinctions and ensures compliance with the 1st amendment," Nair told the commission.