HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/09/01 Item 14~-.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: I4
Meeting Date 9/1/87
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
Ordinance o20~ ~ Amending Chapter 19.60 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code Relating to Political Signs
U. YYl ,
Deputy City Attorney SECU'~U ~.~~-,~u~U AND H(u~+- ~ iJN
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
The City Counci
political signs
opinion of this
giving the sign
as a result of
Vista Municipal
1 requested an opinion as to whether City employees may remove
that are in violation of the Municipal Code. It is the
office that political signs may not be removed without first
owner a minimum of 24 hours notice prior of its removal and,
this research, have attached proposed amendments to the Chula
Code for Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize adoption of recommended provisions
to tkle Municipal Code.
DISCUSSION:
e proposed amendments to the Municipal Code are in response to the concern
f the City Council of the mass proliferation of campaign signs placed
illegally throughout the city during election time. In the past, prosecution
of individuals who had illegally placed signs throughout the city during the
election period have proven unsuccessful. Due to the overcrowded court
systems, prosecution of these individuals would not occur until after an
election and courts have been reluctant to fine individuals once the election
is over. Therefore, individuals who place signs in violation of the Municipal
Code are not deterred by the threat of prosecution. The current Municipal
Code requires a Zoning Enforcement Officer to give five days notice before
removing any illegally placed signs within the city. This has resulted in the
mass proliferation of campaign signs shortly before the end of the election
without any effective legal recourse by the City.
The City Council requested this office render an opinion as to whether or not
these signs may be removed by Zoning Enforcement Officers in order to avoid
visual clutter created by the illegally placed signs. Recent court cases have
held that notice is required before a sign is removed, especially during
election time, and that this notice should be reasonable. The courts have
consistently upheld the policy that during campaign time, a sign owner's First
Amendment rights are especially valuable and a reasonable period of time would
be considered even more important than usual before removing the sign.
•
,.
•
Page 2; Item 14
Meeting Date~Tj$T
In Baldwin v. Redwood (1976) 540 Fed.Rptr.2d 1360, the court held that the
unlimited power of removal conferred on city officials was unconstitutional.
The court felt that the summary seizure of political signs, for even a few
days, could deprive the sign owner of an important First Amendment right, and
that during campaign time, this was an especially valuable right.
A subsequent case, Gonzalez v. Superior Court of Santa Paula (1986) 226
Ca1.Rptr. 164, follows the same line o_f reasoning. In Gonzalez, the court
states that "summary seizure of signs, even for a few` days, can deprive the
sign owners of an important First Amendment liberty interest, especially
during election periods".
Although it is clear from`the cases :that notice is required before a sign's
removal, the courts do not specifically address what would be considered a
reasonable period of time. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that a
reasonable period of time could be considered to be at least a minimum of 24
hours prior to its removal. In addition, the notice should state the reason
it is considered a violation of our Code. Zhis notice must be given to sign
owners who have illegally placed signs on public or private property within
the city. The proposed amendment would allow zoning enforcement officers to
promptly remove illegally placed signs during the election when time is
critically important.
~e second proposed amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code would clarify
the existing ordinance by expressly prohibiting the posting of political signs
on public property. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.60.580 currently
provides that political signs may be posted in any zone within the city,
subject to the regulations regarding size and location. In addition, the
Chula Vista Municipal Code requires a permit to be issued before the posting
of any signs are allowed. However, it does not expressly prohibit the posting
of political signs on public property and should be revised to do so.
It is well within the City's power to prohibit the posting of political signs
on public property. In Members of the City Council of the Cit of Los Angeles
v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) 104 Supreme Court 218, the court upheld the
city ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property. The Los
Angeles Municipal Code prohibited political and non-political signs to be
posted on public places or objects. The court reasoned that upon weighing the
competing interest of the public's need to maintain some visual harmony within
their city and the right to freedom of speech, the court felt that the city's
aesthetic interest was a legitimate government concern and, therefore,
constitutionally permissible.
The Supreme Court, upon review of this case, determined that there were
available alternative channels of communication and that political signs could
still be posted on private property and, therefore, upheld the prohibition of
political signs on public property.
the proposed amendments to Municipal Code section dealing with political
igns meet with the Council's approval, it should be placed on first reading.
FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown
3219a ~.. w .F ~. -' ,