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

Home

July 10, 2010 ( Volume 4 ( No. 13 Zoning Bulletin safety and aesthetics." The district court also concluded that the Super- graphic and Off -Site Sign Bans violated the First Amendment because: the City could avoid those bans "simply by enacting a specific plan in a certain area" without following objective standards. The City appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of district court reversed. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, concluded that the Freeway Facing Sign Ban and the Supergraphic and Offsite Sign Bans did not violate the First Amendment. It held that: (1) the "con- tent -neutral exceptions" to the Freeway Facing Sign Ban did not under- mine the City's substantial interests in aesthetics and safety; and (2) the Supergraphic and Off -Site Sign Bans were not unconstitutional prior restraints on speech. In so holding, the court explained that there was a test for assessing the constitutionality of a restriction on commercial speech. Restrictions on commercial speech that are lawful and not misleading are consti- tutional under the First Amendment if the restrictions: (1) are meant to achieve a substantial government interest; (2) directly advance that interest; and (3) are not "more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." The court first addressed WWR's challenge to the Freeway Facing j Sign Ban. The court explained that exceptions to regulations could undermine and counteract the interests the government claimed when adopting the regulations. In such a case, the regulations would no lon- ger "directly and materially advance its aim." They would therefore be "unconstitutionally underinclusive." Here, the City had adopted the Freeway Facing Sign Ban to achieve the interests of safety and aesthet- ics. Thus, the court had to determine whether those interests were un- dermined by the City -permitted exceptions to the ban. The court held they were not: "[T]he City's decision to permit some freeway facing billboards at the Staples Center and in the ... SUD does not break the link between the Freeway Facing Sign Ban and the City's objectives in traffic safety and aesthetics." Rather, the court found the exceptions made at the Staples Center and the SUD "advance[ed] those very in- terests." Allowing billboards at the Staples Center "was an important element of a project to remove blight and dangerous conditions." Al- lowing billboards at the SUD "was an outgrowth of the City's efforts to improve traffic flow, and thereby safety" since it advanced removal of billboards elsewhere and resulted in a net reduction of billboards in the City. In addressing WWR's challenge to the Supergraphic and Off -Site Sign Bans, the court agreed that City officials could not have unbridled discretion to decide what signs might be exempted from the ban. Here, however, the court emphasized that the exceptions to the bans —which 't ) included special plans, SUDs and development agreements —derived from the City Council's legislative power to regulate land use and not 4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 90