So, what's up with this "sign ordinance" that was apparently violated when Mayor Jerry Sanders agreed to allow Qualcomm to advertise its new Snapdragon mobile platform for a 10-day period at Qualcomm stadium is this?
It's a law I'm familiar with, having written a few stories about the need for more public restrooms Downtown. Any discussions of more public restrooms has inevitably raised the issue of the sign ordinance. ---
Quick background: In a Dec. 7, 2011, memo, Deputy City Attorney Carrie Gleeson opined that although Qualcomm paid for naming rights to San Diego's football stadium ($18 million for 20 years), that agreement with the city doesn't allow for product advertising. And, the city's sign ordinance forbids advertising in, or visible from, the public right-of-way that promotes products and services not available at the location where the signs are located. The point of the law is to cut down on visual clutter and "protect the aesthetic character of San Diego."
But the law hamstrings the city when it comes to funding public-benefit projects, like restrooms. In New York, San Francisco and L.A., there are advertisements on the sides of the stand-alone self-cleaning public restrooms; the revenue from the ads pays for the toilets' maintenance. Similar advertising wouldn't be allowed here.
At least twice-in 1999 and again in 2001-the City Council asked then-City Attorney Casey Gwinn whether an exception to the law could be made for public restrooms. Sure, Gwinn said, but it could open the door to other kinds of off-premises advertising. In the past, the city allowed for "sign districts"-in which certain types of signs was allowed within a defined area-but that law was repealed in 1997.
In 2005, the county's Civil Grand Jury suggested San Diego look to San Francisco for how to craft a sign-ordinance variance that would allow for ads on public restrooms. But that never happened.
What makes this currently relevant? The Portland Loos-attractive, eco-friendly, crime-proof self-cleaning toilets-that the nonprofit homeless-outreach organization, Girls Think Tank, successfully recommended to the city almost two years ago. The Centre City Development Corp., Downtown's redevelopment arm, agreed they were a good idea and planned to locate two in East Village. The purchase was held up while CCDC looked for a way to fund maintenance of the toilets; then, almost as soon as a funding source was found, the state Supreme Court barred California's redevelopment agencies from entering into new contracts pending the court's decision on the future of redevelopment. Last week, the court sided with a state law that ends redevelopment, putting the toilets' future in limbo.
Amending the law will no doubt be a long process-if anyone pushes for it to be amended. Meanwhile, perhaps in exchange for the free stadium advertising, Qualcomm will, say, cover the cost of the Portland Loos?
Read the mayor's statement on his decision to allow Qualcomm to advertise Snapdragon here.