Laserfiche WebLink
October 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin <br />Signs and Billboards/First <br />Amendment City planning <br />code exempts noncommercial <br />signs from advertising rules that <br />apply to commercial signs <br />Billboard company argues that such a distinction <br />violates the First Amendment <br />Citation: Contest Promotions, LLC v. City and County of San <br />Francisco, 867 E3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2017) <br />The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, <br />Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. <br />NINTH CIRCUIT (CALIFORNIA) (08/16/17)—This case addressed <br />the issue of whether a section of a city planning code, which prohibited <br />new billboards but allowed onsite business signs relating to activities <br />undertaken on the premises and did not regulate noncommercial signs, <br />violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. <br />The Background/Facts: The City and County of San Francisco <br />("San Francisco"), through Article 6 of its Planning Code, prohibits <br />general advertising signs -like new billboards —that refer primarily to <br />offsite activities, but allows business signs advertising activities under- <br />taken on the same premises as the sign, subject to various advertising <br />rules. Under the Planning Code, noncommercial signs are exempt from <br />the advertising rules. Such noncommercial signs include, but are not <br />limited to: "[o]fficial public notices," "[g]overnmental signs," "[t]empo- <br />rary display posters," "[f]lags, emblems, insignia, and posters of any <br />nation or political subdivision," and "[h]ouse numbers." <br />Contest Promotions, LLC ("CP") challenged San Francisco's sign - <br />related regulations. CP rented advertising space from businesses and <br />placed third -party advertising signs in that space, framed by text invit- <br />ing passersby to enter the business and win a prize related to the sign. <br />CP argued that the Planning Code's distinction between commercial <br />and noncommercial signs violated the First Amendment. Specifically, <br />CP argued that by exempting noncommercial signs from its regulatory <br />ambit, Article 6 of the Planning Code violated the First Amendment. <br />San Francisco asked the district court to dismiss CP's action. The <br />district court entered a judgment of dismissal. <br />CP appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. <br />6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />