PC 07/08/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- the pastors. He noted in meetings with the Pleasanton Ministerial As iation, they have expressed their support for the City's desire to keep it free of sign cl tter. He stated that the churches are most willing to comply with the size of the allowed ban ers and any other conditions put forth by staff. He felt the Commission should be free f fear regarding any possible encroachment on the separation of church and state, noting at both Houses of Congress open with a prayer; that chaplains are in the military, hospi s, etc. He encouraged the Commission to approve the application. Mr. Emer further stated the religious institutions have helped the Police Department with certain ings and that the Lynnewood Church is a member of the Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Hovingh noted when he was growing up in the Midwest ev ry church had about a 4 ft. high sign noting the times of church services. He asked Mr. E erson whether all or some churches nowadays have this type of sign. Mr. Emerson repli that his church does not, primarily because their church is on a busy street and people wo Id have a difficult time reading it anyway. He noted that this type of sign does not lend itsel well except in smaller, more rural areas. In response to a comment from the audience that such a sign would b illegal, Mr. Swift said there might be some restrictions as to how much or what can be put n such signs, but indicated they are not illegal. ~ Mr. Emerson concluded his remarks by thanking the Commission for the opportunity to speak. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED. Commissioner Mahern stated she has a different viewpoint of signage and is a proponent of good signage. She felt as a service to the community good signs sho Id be displayed so people will know what is going on. She said she is supportive of a ctive banners of good material, but not paper ones that get torn easily. She did not think th t even if all the 30 churches in the area put up a banner that it would be offensive, but s e might get concerned if the number reached 200. At this point, she could support the amen ment. Commissioner Wright stated he had been initially somewhat concern about approval of the banners because of non-mainstream churches using them in a way wh ch might prove detrimental to the community. After hearing all the comments and M . Swift's remarks, he felt even if those churches should choose to put up some banner or si nage, it might be better if they were allowed only four times a year, pointing out they uld also go back to the original Code. At this point, he changed his opinion and suppo the amendment. Commissioner McGuirk commented he felt the churches and organiza . ons were made of individuals who have the right to go through the process of getting th signage they need. In regard to the number of banners displayed by the various churches, h did not think that Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1992 Page 5