Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/16/2010 - Special Meeting

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2010 j Volume 4 ( No. 13 ,ter I, Article 4.4 of the City's Municipal Code ("LAMC"): the "Free- way Facing Sign Ban" and the "Supergraphic and Offsite Sign Bans." The Freeway Facing Sign Ban prohibited "billboards located within 2,000 feet of and `viewed primarily from' a freeway or an on -ramp/ off -ramp." The Supergraphic and Offsite Bans banned supergrapbic bill- boards —"large -format signs projected onto or hung from building walls" —and offsite-billboards—billboards displaying "messages direct- ing attention to a business or product not located on the same premises as the sign itself." The City provided that the purpose of its sign bans was to: "pro- mote public safety and welfare" by "provid[ing] reasonable protec- tion to the visual environment" and by "ensuring that billboards do no `interfere with traffic safety or otherwise endanger public safety."' (LAMC § 14.4.1.) WWR argued that the Freeway Facing Sign Ban was "an unconsti- tutionally underinclusive restriction on commercial speech because the City had, in fact, permitted some freeway facing billboards despite the Ban." The City had adopted an' ordinance that authorized freeway fac- ing billboards near the Staples Center, a state-of-the-art sports and en- tertainment complex. The Staples Center had been developed to "elim- inate blight and dangerous conditions in downtown Los Angeles." The City determined that the location and use of the Staples Center "required billboards that could effectively communicate event -related information." The City had made a second exception to the Freeway Facing Sign Ban when it allowed freeway facing billboards in a spe- cial use district ("SUD"). The City had created the SUD so as to: al- low billboard owners to relocate four billboard signs; and help the City avoid. paying just compensation for the elimination of more than 16 billboards in one traffic corridor because of the ban. WWR also argued that the Supergraphic and Off -Site Sign Bans were "facially unconstitutional prior restraints on speech." It said this was because exceptions to the bans gave the City Council "unbridled discretion to select among preferred speakers because those exceptions lacked] objective criteria for their application." The City exempted from those bans signs that were "specifically permitted pursuant to a legally adopted specific plan, supplemental use district or an approved development agreement." The bans did not specify the circumstances under which the exceptions could be invoked. Finding there were no material issue of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court issued summary judg- ment in favor of WWR. It held that the bans challenged by WWR vio- lated the First Amendment because they, in conjunction with their ex- ceptions, allowed the City to "eliminate speech based on content." It ( concluded that the Freeway Facing Sign Ban violated the First Amend- ment because: the City's decision to allow such billboards at the Staples Center and in the SUD "undermine[d] [the City's] stated interests in © 2010 Thomson Reuters 3 89