Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2009\ Volume 31 No.1 0 (~~ See also: Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S., 527 U.S. 173, 119 S. Ct. 1923, 144 L. Ed. 2d 161, 27 Media LRep. (BNA) 1769,164 A.L.R. Fed. 711(1999). \ i j ~ ~ ij I I i I I I I I \ I I I I I I I j 1 "./--..,::, Case Note: The case brought by Clear Channel was consolidated with a similar case brought by Metro Fuel, LLC. Metro. Fuel chal- lenged aspects of the Zoning Resolution that controlled where panel advertisements could be placed and how they could be illuminated. In its decision, the court also addressed Metro Fuel's claims. Metro Fuel's arguments were essentially the same as Clear Channel's: that the zoning restrictions were so pierced by exceptions that the city's goals were undermined. Under reasoning similar to its decision on the Clear Channel claims, the court held that the Zoning Resolu- tion's restriction on the placement and illumination of off-site adver- tising signs did not violate the First Amendment. The court said the city had a valid basis for distinguishing in its regulation of off-site commercial advertising within street furniture franchise and off"site commercial advertising on. bui1dingfa~ades. The court also found the city's regulations on the latter would directly advance the city'S interest in improving the attractiveness of the buildings facing the streets, and were no more extensive than necessary. J Validity of Zoning Regulation---c-Outdoor advertising company contends county sign ordinance violates First Amendment i ') \ . '...----,' - . Company says ordinance gives officials "unfettered discretion to allow or deny" signs Citation: Stott Outdoor Advertising v. County of Monterey, 601 E Supp. 2d 114 3 (N.D. Cal. 2009) . CALIFORNIA (03/10/09)-Stott Outdoor Advertising ("Stott") was engaged in the outdoor advertising business. It leased property, con- structed and erected outdoor advertising structures, and then sold the space to the public for advertising. In furtherance of its business, Stott entered into three ground leases for property in the county. It intended to build billboards on those properties. The county's sign ordinance (the "Ordinance") required a use per- mit to construct. an off-site outdoor billboard in the county. Under the Ordinance, a use permit could be granted by the county planning com- mission (the "Commission") if the Commission found that the proposed. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 49