HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attch 5 Fiedler letterBRUCE FIEDLER
6589 Hemlock Street
Dublin, CA 94568
August 16, 2011
Dublin Planning Commission
100 Civic Center
Dublin, CA 94568
Good Evening Planning Commissioners:
I understand that at your meeting of August 23 you will discuss some changes
proposed for parts of the city code, and that one section will touch on sign
regulation. I have attempted to find out what items your staff are working on, but
understand that that information will not be available until Friday, too late to make
suggestions. With that in mind, I am directing this letter to you and to your staff
so that they can consider some items that may be pertinent to your discussion.
I have been involved in the effort to beautify our community through judicious
regulation of signs, balloons, banners, gorillas and the like for more than twenty
years. And I think that Dublin has benefited from having thoroughfares that no
longer look like a garage sale, a circus midway, or East Fourteenth Street in
another local city.
But before specific suggestions, 1 thought it useful to consider why we regulate
signs at all. Is it to set a basic tone for how the city looks with an eye toward
attracting retail, personal services, entertainment, and software businesses? Or
is it to put on our best face as a town that is desirable, has some class, and an
appropriate value for our homes? Do we want to cultivate a robust retail,
commercial and residential tax base to fund our schools and other public
services? Or are we just trying to keep down the clutter so that motorists can see
the stoplights and street signs among all the other items competing for their
attention? Maybe some of all the above. And in my travels around the Bay Area,
it does seem that those communities that are careful about the size and number
and color and placement of signage are the places where people really want to
live.
With that in mind I wish to make comments about several issues that have
jumped out at me as I have gone through our town:
a) We seem to have a lot of temporary signage made of flimsy materials. I realize
that there is a process for banners about grand openings and sales and the like,
but the current code allows them to be up 21 days. And after just another three
ATTACHMENT 5
weeks, they can go back up. This totals six months of the year. This seems to be
a lot of special sales (though I do remember a store in Los Angeles that was
"Going Out of Business" for seventeen years). The interval between use of
temporary signs needs to be much greater. This would still allow for a
reasonable number of seasonal promotions and would cut down on the "garage
sale" look of some of our streets.
I have a second concern about these temporary signs. Some go up with a 21 day
permit, but stay up longer. Others may go up without permits, or may exceed the
specifications stated in their permit. Non-permitted ornon-conforming or past
date signs should be placed in the "enforce without the need for specific
complaint" category.
b) Some businesses have put up permanent signs that have gone through the
permit process regarding size, materials and placement. And then they have
made their window space into additional signs. Some of these are painted on,
sometimes in Day-Glo colors. Others are permanent lettering or designs. Others
are vinyl or paper which are pasted to the inside or outside of the windows. / do
not object to windows being made into signs, but 1 do believe that if that signage
is critical to the identification of the location or nature of the business, the design
and materials should have a similar approval process to other signs, and that
area be subtracted from the total allowed for that frontage.
c) Dublin has a large number of auto dealerships, and they probably bring
significant revenue to the city. And many -- though not all -- have augmented
extensive and permitted permanent signage (they do operate in large buildings)
by putting fabric or cardboard signs on the light poles in the parking lots. One
that I saw today had fifteen additional and non-permitted signs; another had
twenty-four. Since their merchandise is parked outside with prices on the
windshields, it is obvious what they are selling (Arlen Ness and the specialty car
sales across the street do have their inventory inside). All those extra signs are
hardly needed. In addition, they tend to weather quickly and soon take on an
appearance that makes our city look bad. Every car dealership has an approved
sign program. Enforcement should look to what has been approved, and again,
should commence without the need for additional complaint from the populace.
And should a dealership wish to remove signage from the building to
compensate for the additional square footage of signs to be placed on light poles,
that item should be considered for approval by your Commission.
I will be present at your meeting on August 23 and will bring photos showing
some of the items I have mentioned.
Sincerely,
Bruce Fiedler