Calls to
alter Yorba Linda's existing regulations regarding the placement of
temporary signs in public rights-of-way are one constant after nearly
every city election, especially for signs posted along Yorba Linda
Boulevard, Imperial Highway and other heavily traveled thoroughfares.
Some
residents view the biennial glut of signage advocating candidates and
causes as welcome evidence of a vibrant local democracy, while
others see only waste, clutter and examples of an increasingly
negative tone taken by candidates and groups to demean opponents.
Usually,
requests for stricter regulations are ignored or just forgotten after
an election, and if reports outlining potential changes come before
the City Council, they're “received and filed.”
But
now, a decision expected by June in a case before the United States
Supreme Court could establish standards for Yorba Linda and other
cities to regulate temporary signage, according to a report presented
council members from the City Attorney's office.
The
report came in response to a council request to place the issue of
regulating temporary signs located on public rights-of-way on the
Feb. 3 council agenda. City Attorney Todd Litfin recommended
deferring action due to the upcoming court decision.
A
ruling in the case, Reed v. Gilbert, “may substantially change the
laws pertaining to temporary signs,” the report noted. The case
challenges portions of an Arizona city's differing rules for
categories of signs, such as political and church and real
estate-related directional signs.
The
city's ordinance was upheld by a Court of Appeals ruling on a 2-1
vote that the regulations were content-neutral and based on
objective factors, not on the wording on the signs. The
Supreme Court granted review of the appeal court ruling, with
argument heard Jan. 12.
The
city attorney's report noted: “Although 'content-neutrality' seems
like a simple concept, applying it in particular cases has produced a
confusing array of definitions from courts, particularly in the
context of sign regulation.”
And
since the Supreme Court's decision in the Reed case “has the
potential to change the state of the law in a dramatic way,”
waiting for the ruling “prior to assessing existing regulations is
recommended.”
This
city's current rules for signs in public rights-of-way apply to all
types of signs and are in place for public safety reasons, according
to guidelines issued to candidates who seek council positions.
The
regulations, some of which are routinely ignored, especially within
the Main Street business district, apply to owner identification,
size, placement and quick post-election removal.
The
most recent quest to change the city's rules came in a six-page
proposed ordinance presented to the council in July 2013. It was
received and filed on a 3-1 vote, with Craig Young dissenting. He
said the signs were a “major issue” that needed to be addressed.