SR-8-A (51)
CA'RMM'SSS'msl~sleaana
CIty CounCIl MeetIna 2-26-85
!.-.A
p:~ II.
Santa MonIca. CalIfornIa
STAFF REPORT
TO.
Mayor and CIty CouncIl
FROM:
CIty Attorney
SUBJECT'
SIgn OrdInance
I-NTRODUCTIOt.!
ThIS
staff reoort transmIts
for IntroductIon and fIrst
rpadInq an
ordInance adoptlnq a
comprehenSIve 510n Code for
thE>
CIty
In addItIon to an analysIs of the speCIfICS of the
SInn ordInance, thIS report contaIns the CIty Attorney's leaal
analYSIS of constItutIonal and leQISlatIve restrIctlon~ and an
pstImate of the costs of e~forcement
~ACKGROUND
The CIty has conSIdered the adootIon ot a comprehensIve
SIan
corle
for
a
numbf"r
of
vears.
In
1982, the Plan~lna
CommIS<;lon
dpproved
a proposed SIQn
OrdInance, however, the
CIty CounCIl
dId
not
reach
aqreement
on
dn
approprIate
"amortIzatIon
per I 0 d 'I
for the phaslnq
out of eXIstInQ Slans
that
dId
not co~form to the
nFW standards and t~e ordInance
w~s retprred back to t~e CIty Attornev
in
1983. the State LeOlslature
pas sed t he " E 11 1 S B 11 1 "
(CalIfornIa BusIness and ProfeSSIons Code SectIons ~490-5497),
WhIch
lImIt,,>
the
extent
to 'Hhlcl1
Cltle<;
can
reaulate
"on-premIses
advertlslnQ dIsolays."
In
1984
the
UnIted
1
F-A
FEb Z 6 1tIJ
~/
Stdtes
Sura l~me Court held U'l .k.1.1Jl_of Los Angele..lL V-,-_1'.axpayer~
faL- VIncent! 80 L.Ed. 1d 772
(May 1~, 1984) ("VIncent") that
CItIes may,
("anSI~tent ';lJ th
the Fl [' S t Amerldmen t
La
the
ConstItutIon, reaulate SIans and prohIbIt types of SIgns found
to be contrary to the publlC weltare for 1esthetlc or tr~fflC
satetv reasons
The CItV Attorney's offIce analyzed
the oroposed ~lan
Code
'in
lIght
of
the EllIs
BIll
and constItutIonal
r-onslderatlons_
We roncluded
that whIle the SIan Code was
oenerally constItutIonal
under Y..!...Qc en t _
the ordInance as
drafted
lacked suffICIently "narrow) oblectlve. and defInIte"
c;tandards
tor de~lan
reVIPW to wIthstand constItutIonal
scrutIny under
the CalIfornIa SUQreme Court deCISIons ot
DIllon v
_MunICIpal _(:_~HHt. 4. Cal. 3d 860. 4A4 P 2d 94,5, 94
Cdl
Rptr
777 (1971) and Du)aney v MunICIpal Court, 11 Cdl
3d
17.
520 P 2rl 1, 112 Cal Rptr 777 (1974)
AccordIngly,
the proposed S19n Code was re~drafted to prOVIde for narrower
rlnd mor~ speclfJc staDdards of r~v]ew
The ElllS Bl11 precludes mandatory unlompen~ated removal
of most p~rmanent OD-premlses Slan~ ~n the CItv
Accordlnglv.
the proposed SIan Code was redrafted to prOVide for requlatLoD
to
the extent
permItted hy State Law.
The SIgn Code now
reqUIres prompt
removal
of all sIqns not protected by the
EllIS HIll and removal 01 orotected
Slans 15 years after the
adOP1..Ior.
ot
the ordln.:J.flce,
as
permltted by BUSlness
&
ProfeSSIons Code SectIon ~495rdl.
The reVIsed SIon Code was reVIewed by the ArchItectural
RflVIew Board)
WhICh fl1ade
several techn1cal
comments
The
2
/'
---
Plannlnq CommlSSlon
i:l}<;O
revlPwpd
the
SIan Code
ilnd made
varlOUS comments.
The
followlnq
sectIons
of
thlS
reno)- r
COl1talo
a
sectIon-by-sectlon
analVS1~
01
thp
ordInancp~
the
Clty
Attorney's
lC>Qal
anrdVSlS. and an
analYS1S of the budqetary
lmDdcts of ImplementInq and enforclnu the SIqn Code.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The Slqn Code would be d new Chapter g of ArtIcle IX at
thE'
MunH'lpal
Code
Tne eXl~tlnq SIan
Code [ArtIcle VIII
Chanter 51 would be repe~lpd
Sectlon 9900 adopts the 1982 edltlon of the Unlform Slgn
rOde a~ the structural sIqn code for the CltV: cxcppt where
there IS an express confllct between the unlform code and the
CIty code
3ertlon 9901 contaIns leaI51~tlVP fIndInas
In addltIon
to the basJc flndlnq that the regulatlon of slgns IS necessary
to protect the publIC welfare, we have dratted fIndInqs
IdentIfVIna
the vIsual
blIght caused by unrequlated sIqns:
statInG
1 ha l
the
VlSlJ,ql
a~pearance
at the
C'I'V cannot be
protect~d by measures less restrIctIve than the SIgn Code, and
spe\'JfVl110
the
Intent
of doe CIty to
regulate SIgns to the
maXImum extent permItted by state law
SectIon 9902 contaIns the rleflnltIon of S4 terms used In
the SIan Code The follOWIng defInItIons have been altpred or
added ~n llaht of commellts by Lhe PlannIna CommISSIon and
ArchItectural ReVIew Board"
J
....
~/
SectIon 9902rk1 BUIldIng IdentIfIcatIon Slans.
L) e c t Ion 9902[111 Real Estate SlqDS.
SectIon 9902{ccl Neon Slans
Sectlon 9902(ppl 81gn Cans
The PlannInQ CommIssIon's verSIon of SectIon 99021t)
defInes
Hlgh RIse SIQnS as Slans located on a bUIldIno ~IX or
more
stor1€S
1n he1ght
We have
chanqed thIS defInltlon to
allow HIqh RIse SIgns on bUlldInQS
of more than four storIes
10 order to be cons1stent wIth the Land Use Element
C)ectlon 9903 states that a "SIgn permIt" from the ARB IS
requIred for the placInq, changIng, alterlnq, or dIsolaYlno ot
any
510n
unless
spe(,ItIcally
exempted
by
the
SIqn Code.
Reoalrs
and replacement of electrIcal
or mechanIcal parts do
not reqUIre a SIan permIt.
SectIon
9904
prOVIdes that tees
for the processIng of
SIan approvals shall be set by CIty CouncIl resolutIon.
SectIon
9905
speclfl.es
the
content
of
SIan
permIt
ao01JCatIons.
A srandard applIcatIon form must be approved by
the
ARB
and
PlannIng ComrnI5sIon WIthIn SIX months ot the
adoptIon of the SIgn Code
Se('tlon
9906
speCIfIes
the
procedures
for
5Iqn
dPplIC.'ltIDns
The PlannInq and
!onlnq DIVISIon must, WIthIn
30
days
after
recelVIna
a
completed
appllcatlon,
eIther
admInIstratIvely
aoprove
the
applIcatIon or set
d datp for
reVlew bv the ARB
Section
9907
concer'!,,;
actions
on
SIgn
permIt
applIcatIons
The
sectIon
has
been re-drafted
to Include
',tandards
belIeved to be suffICIently unarrnw. ub]eCl Ive, and
4
/'
"
preCIse" to pass constItutIonal scrutIny
Under SectIon 9907:
a SIgn applIcatIon must be uncundItIonally approved unless the
ARB makes one of Lhree flndInQS
a
That
the
SIGn
~nterteret.
Wl.th
Vphlcular
or
pedestrIan
traffIC
by dIstractIng attentIon
ot" obstructlna
VISIon.
b.
That
the SIan IS Inconaruous wIth or detracts from
the dIstinct archItectural or hIstorIC deSIgn of Its bUIldlnq
or nelqhborhood.
c,
Tnat
the SIan ob~cures other Slans or detracts from
the
VIS1bIllty of
olher
SIgns,
bUlldlnqs. or
publlC VIew
corrIdors
The J\RB
may
con",Ider
the
shape,
deSIgn, placement,
rolor~
style or quantlty of
text. IllumInation. or reflected
lIght at a ~Ign
A SIgn applIcatIon may not be denIed because
at the contents or messa~e of a SIgn
Sectlon 9Q08 provides that ARB deCISIons may he dopealed
to
the
PlannInG CommlS~Ion
and
that
Plar.nlnq CommlsSlon
deCISIons are tlnal.
C' ~
,,,eCLlon
9909
prOVIdE'S tltat. a
~Iqn permlL shall become
VOId
unless
all condItIons have been
complIed WIth w~thln 6
months
of
the
Issuance
of
the
SIan permIt
or. for " I an s
aSSOCIated WIth proposed new bUIldInGS. before the Issuance of
.':1
r.ertlfIC<l\E' of
occupancy
Photoqraohs of
"ilonS must be
flIed WIthIn 30 days ot the completIon of the s14n
Sectlon
9910
prOVIdes
for admInIstratIve
dpproval of
slqns
based on
aUldellnes aop~oved by
the ARB and Plannlna
C:ommlSSlOfl,
<:J
.-
-"
Sertlon 9911 provides tor Slqn adlustments
The ARB may
qrant
dpproval
of
a
<;lon
that
does
not
conform
to the
"non~structural"
requIrements of the SIgn Code (IncludIng thp
ApprovaL
of
an
otherwise
prohibited
type at
Slqn) upon a
flndlno that strIct aoplIcatlon of the SIan Code would result
In practIcal dIfficultIes or unnecessary hardsh~n~, that t~e
arantlna of the adlustment would be conSIstent WIth the publIC
weltare, and that the SIgn wlll be harmonIOUS with the site
SectIon 9912 specIfies 12 tyoes of slqns that are exempt
from
the
Slqn CodE'.
1n most cases,
517e reaulreme~ts are
speCified for exempt Slons.
<) e C t Ion
9913
5pecltles
10
tvpes
of ~lqns
tJ~at are
permItted
If
approved under the SlqD Code
SectlOT' 9913(d)
permits
hlqh-rlse slqns under certaIn
condItIons and was the
sublect
of
conSIderable
d1ScusSlon bv the ARB and PlannIng
r:ommISSlon.
Section
'"::1914
speCIfIes
13 r-vpes
of nrohlblted Slans
Noteworthy amonq orOhlbJLed cateaorles are the followlnq"
d Prolectlng and roof Slqns
b. Off-premIse SIgns
c AnImated or emlttlna Slons
d. Portable SIgns
e
MIscellaneous
slqns
and
posters OD
walls, poles,
fences,
or trees. that are vIslhle
trom a publIC wav.
TherE'
rnav
be
slqnlflcant
c.onstltutlonal
oroblems
T.-llt')
thE'
enforceabIlIty of thIS prOVISIon absent a speCIfIC fIndIng for
Its
neceSSIty.
The prohIbItion here embr~ces both commerclal
and pOll tIcal SIgns
6
SectIon
9915
eSLabIlsnes the total
SIgn area for each
type
of
zon1ng dIstrIct ]n the CIty.
In oeneral, permItted
slqnaQe
IS
related
to bUIldIng frontaoe measured along the
For multIPle use bUIldlnas 10 commercIal
slte street address
or IndustrIal zones, a maXImum at one SQuare foot of s]gn per
lIneal foot of frontaqe IS permItted, In resIdentIal zones,
permItted slgnaoe 1S qenerally one~hal[ square foot per lIneal
toot of frontaae The maXImum area of any sInole sIgn other
than
a hlah rIse sIgn IS 100
square feet. no bUSIness may be
reaulred to have less thap 25 square fept of Slqnaqe
We
have deleted the maXImum
51gnage lImItatIon at 200
square feet for any sInale SIte, thIS requlrempnt m1qht Impose
dIscrImInatory
restrIctIons on larae developments on a sInQle
bIte,
~uch as Colorado Place
The deslonatlons tor 0I~trlcts
In SectIon 9q15 may reqUIre future amendment to conform to the
10rthcoffilDa reVI~lon of [he /onInq OrdInance
SectIon
9916 has
contaIned
been added to speCIfy that the Slgo
In the approved ThIrd Street Mall
reqUIrements
DesIqn GUIdelInes shall govern Sl?nage for Mall pro]ects
SectIon 9917 reqUIres that slqns and theIr supportl~q
structureg be kept In repaIr. preserved. and neatly dIsolayed.
'-,ec t lon
9918
prohIbIts
the
postIng of any sIqn
the property owner
by a
prIvate person WIthout the consent ot
SectIon
9919 prohIblts the postInq
of SIan, OD or over
CIty
",here
streets
The CIty CouncIl may permIt Slqns over streets
the
pro!,erty of
more
than
one
person would
lJe
benefItted.
7
SectlOI1
9920
concerns
the modIfIcatIon
or removal of
eXIstlnq
non-conformlnq
sIgns
As
orlqlndlLv drattcd,
eXlstlna permanent
SIgns
would
be
requIred Lo be removed
WI Unn
"
:::J
years
from the adoptIon of
the Slqn Code unless a
hards}np
extenSIon was aranted.
Non-permanent Signs would be
requIred
to be removed WIthIn 6 months.
The sectIon has been
modIfIed
by the CIty Attorney
to conform to the reqUIrements
of
the
EllIS
BIll
An addItIonal
modIfIcatIon to ~ectIon
9920(elf61
has
beel1 made
at the request
of the Chamber of
Commerce
A
SIan
IS
deemed to be
non-conformIna If It IS
destroyed
and
cannot
be
replaced WIthIn
120
days
after
rlestructlon
(rather
than
30
days}
In
addItIon,
the
replacement of such SIgn IS exempt trom ARB approval.
As
re-dratted,
:>E"C t lon
9920
contaIllS
the
folloWlna
prOVISIons'
a
Prohlblted
SIgns WIth a useful lIfe of less than 1~
years
from
the date
of theIr IntallatIon
must be removed,
modIf~ed: or de-actIvated Wlth~n SIX months of the ~doptlon of
the
SIal') Code.
These Include
anImated SIgns: balloon Sl~ns,
emIttlrtO
SlqllS,
mIscellaneous
SLans
and
posters, portable
Sl?ns: traftlc SIgn replIcas, vehIcle SIgns. streamers and the
lIke. and temporary wlndow slqns.
b
SIgr>S
that
are
categorIcally exempt
from
the
protectIons
of
the EllIS
BIll must be
removed or modItIed
torthwlth upon notIce
These Include Slan~ that are remodeled
or
are affected by eXDdnSlon of
the bUIldIllq, SIgns [hat are
relocated,
SIgns
that
are more than
50 oercent destroyed,
B
slqns that are abandoned or obsolete~ Slans that are unsafe or
~ trafflC hazard.
c Slgns
and SlqDS that the
that may not be
QWnf'r aqrE"e,> to
remove
ordered
removed
WI thou t
compensatIon
by the rltv under the EllIS BIll must be removpd
upon
the eXpJrdtlon of 15 years from the adoptloD of the SLqn
COtje.
In
accordance
wIth
the
prOV1SlonS
of
HUSlnp,>s
&
ProfeSSIons Code SectIon 5495(d1.
d
The
prOVISIon
alloWlno the ARB
to extend the tIme
for removal has been retaIned; althouah It IS not believed to
be leqally necessary In llqht of the EllIS Bl11
e
The
SIgn Code does not apply to off-premIses SlQnS~
so
lono
as
eXIstIng state law
(BUSIness & ProfessIons Code
SectIon 5412.5) remaIns lD effect
SectIon
9921
Olves the BUIldIng OffIcer the power to
If the SIan does not conform to the terms
revoke a SIGn permIt
of the oermlt and the approved plans
SectIon 9922 speclfles the procedures for enforcement of
the '-310n Code ~ 1 nc Iud 1 nq manda tocv removal of Don-con f 0 rml no
SJgns
':)er t Ion
9923
,pqulres
the
oreparatlon {)f
d hdWibook
exolalnlnq the SIgn Code wIthIn SIX months ot Its adoptIon
L EGA1~~NAL Y S I ti
FII..5J; Amendment pr lllC.Lp..lS'2'
The
oowpr of a CItv 10
~equlate SIgns ]5 rooted In the
well-settled and recently recoanlzed prInCIple that a CIty
"may leqItImately exerClse ItS polIce Dower to ddvdnce
aes the tIC va 1 ues C;;! Ui'..-9L_ L05__~E0_e2-_v '-u_nT_a]:{p_a'y~e r s _t2-'L
9
hncen t ,
80 L. Ed _ 2 d 7 72. 179 [1984 1
See Bermdn v
Parker.
l48
u s
;> 6 ,
33
(1954)
( " r 1 1 t L:3 WIt h 1 n
the OOHer of ,_he
leglslatur!'>
to
determ1ne
that
the
communIty
should
be
heautlful as well as clean
" )
The Court In ~1D~~~ adopted
the test of [}nl-.!:ed_Stat~
V-,-~_Q 'J!L!. ~ Ll . 3 9 1 U S
367. 377 [196B}
for ludlclal reVIew of a
"VIEWpoInt
neutral"
regulatIon affectlrg
free expressIon ot
Ideas'
r A 1
aovernment
-'
reoulatlon
IS
suffICIently lustlfled If It IS WIthIn the
constItutIonal power of the government, If
It
furthers
an Imoortant
or substantIal
flovprnmental
Interest~ 1f
the qovernment
Interest
IS unrelated
to the sUOpreSSIon
of tree expreSSIon: and If the 1l'Cldental
restr1ctIon on FIrst Ampndment freedoms IS
no
qreater
T_han
IS
t>ssentIal
to
the
furtherance of that Interest
80 L. Ed. 2d
at 785.
'1' h e Co u r t 's de CIS Ion ltl VI nee n t a c cor d S 'In t h the n en {' r a 1
orlnCloles
establIshed
1n lts earlIer
rulIng In l1etrom~dla,
l_ll~ ____--Y__ C;::_I t.y"_.Q1__$..Jl.n_Ql..~gg ,
453 U S. 490 (19801, ItS analYSIS
IS conSIstent WIth tests slated In earlIer federal cases See
C.?_n tr a_L__ __H l!(j~ ~~_ _____G<!:'i _ & ~l e_~J r l c_~~C_~~_ v ~nu!::~12J, l~ ~~L.V lee
CQ~~~~lon. 447 U S
557 (1980):
BaldWIn v Redwooq~~lY, 542
F.2d
1360
[9th
CIr
1976)
~9~~J:L__~___Jor- t_of_l->o r tJ dnQ. 641
F ?d 1243 (9th Clf. 1981)
1 0
V~~~~n~ clearly establishes that the City may~ under lts
oollce
power,
aenerally orOhlbI( certaIn
types ot permanent
SIgns
The
CIty Attorney has
orevIously expressed the View
~hat
the
absolute
prohibition
on
postlnq Slons
on public
property contaIned
111
MunlCIpal Code SeC[IOn
4231 IS valid
under Vlncent (Memorandum OpIDlon 84~J~).
Both
the
earlier ~nd current
verSIons of the proposed
SIqn
Code
pase;
the
fIrst two pronqs
of the constl~utlonal
; est-
'rhpre-
IS
no doubt
as to the
~Ity'S power to adopt
reaulatlOI1S
Santa Monica's consIstently artIculated interest
In
orE"SerVlna
and
lTnpr 0VI nq
Lhe appearance of
theL'ItY1S
suffiCIently
"substantIdl" to JustIfy
a total prohibItIon on
certain
types
of
SIons
and deslon
reVIew of
all SIgns
SImIlarly.
the
Ordll1anCe
appears to
"dIrectly advance" the
Jntf'ICSt.S
of
aesthetICS
and
trattle safety
The COl.lr t l n
VIncent
- --- -------
recognIzed
the
"welahty;
essentIally aesthetIC
Intf'teS1:
fof CItIes! In
proscrlblng IntrUSIve and unoleasant
formats for expreSSIon":
The
prOblem
addressed
by
thIS
ordl.nance--the
vI~ual
assault
on
the
CItIzens
of
Los Anqeles
presented by an
accumulation
of
SIgns
on
oublle
oroperty--constltutes
d
sIqnltlcant eVIl
WIthIn
the CIty's Dower
to prohIbIt.
80
L Ed. old at 7BB
However!
before concludIng that
the proposed SIqn Codp
] S
free
from constItutIonal
problems}
1 tIS
necessary Lo
examIne the speCIfIC SItuation In Santa MonIca WIth respect to
11
whether t~e ordlnance IS "unrelated to expresslon" and whether
Its
restrlctlons
on
exoreSSlon
are
"no greater
than
IS
essential."
A
Jntended
regulatIon
IS
unrelated to expreSSIon
If It 1'5 not
to
stIfle the messagp expressed and If alternatlve
channels of communIcatIon are open
Metr.9_rne~ Inc. v'-_~
g!
San
DleqoJ
26 CdI
3d 848, 610
P 2d 407, 164 Cal. Rptr
~1()
(19801.
If alternatIve cha~nels for expressIon are opent
a
total
orohlbltlon
IS IlkeIv to be
held both unrelaled to
expreSSIon and essentIal to preventing
rlutter The CourL In Y~pcent held
the oroblem of VIsual
WhIle
the First
Amendment does not
auarantee
the
rIght
to
employ
every
conceivable method of communicatIon at all
times and In all olaces, a restrIction on
expressive actlvltv may be Invalld If the
remalnIna
modes
Inadequate.
The
of
Los
communIcation
are
Angeles
ordInance
does
not aftect
any IndIVIdual's freedom
to
exerCIse
the
r::.aht
to speak
and to
dIstrIbute
11tE"rature
In the
same place
where
the
POSLIOQ
of
SIgns
OD
publIC
propertv IS prohIbIted.
Anoeles
omlttedJ
80
~, Ed. 2 d
fTlhere arp
avaIlable II' Los
at 779 (CitatIons
ample
alternatIve modes
The Court
In Vincent co~c]uded by
statIna that If the
CIty has a suffICient baSIS for belleVlna tnat bIllboards are
12
d
traffIC
hazards and are
unattractIve, "then ObVIously the
most dIrect and oerMans the oDlv effectIve approach to ~olvlnq ,
the oroblem IS to prohIbIt them."
80 L.Ed
2d at 792, qUotIng
453 U S 490, ~08
MetxomedIa
lnc
v
CIty of San_DIe~J
(1980)
[Thel aesthetIC
l.mOlIcated by
Interests that are
fSlansl are both
psycholoqIcal and pconO~IC. The character
of the enVIronment affects the qualIty of
lIfe
and
the value of
property In both
commercIal and reSIdentIal areas.
We hold
that
on thIS record,
these Interests are
suffICIently
substantIal to
lustIfy thIS
content
neutral, ImoartIally admInIstered
prohIbItIon
80 L Ed
2d at 792.
Numerous
state
and
federal
deCISIons have
held that
local
ordInances
reQUlatlna commercIal speech must reach no
turthpr
than
necessary
to
accomplIsh
the governmental
Interest
<;:'~!1J~_L~Hu9-s:'QJ}~~_~__!:I<__J:)ectrIc Co- v PublIC SerVIce
CQmf!l"L~S I 0 P .
447 U.S. 557. ~61 (1980)
As was recenLly stated
hy the ~3lIfornla Court of Appeal In Clty of IndIo v ~rJ_oyroJ
143 Cal
App
3d 1~lJ 1~7. 191 cal. Rptr. S65, ~69 [19831
fTlhe
law must be
neIther vague nor
QubstantIally over or under InclUSIve, but
drawn WIth narrow
speCIfICIty
to aVOId
unnecessary
expreSSIon.
IntrUSIon
on
freedom of
11
ThIS
IS a specIfIC applIcatIon of the general prIncIPle
that
the
constltutlonal
quar-antee
of
due
process
of Jaw
prevents
the
erOSIon
of
FIrst
AmendmE'nt
1IbertIes
by
nrocE'durE's
that
,>weep
too
broadly and wIth
too
lIttle
dIscrImIniltIon)
requIrInq
rIgorous
rrocedural
standards so
that
freedoms
of expreSSIon are
"rInged about wIth adeQuatE'
bulwarks "
~eel Bantam Books~)n(
v.
S~~lIv~T1l 372 U S
581
66
f1961]
9_ou-.!:he,?_st_S'_LD PromotIons. Ltd
v Co~~adJ 420 U.S
546,
561 (197S); BaldwIn v. Redwood Clt~} 540 t.2d 1360. 1365
(9th Clr
1976)
The courts havp scrutInized poster and SIan requlalIons
closely
to
ensure
that
protected
speech
IS
not
unduly
restrIcted
As the nature of
the requlatlon shlfts trom the
purely
(color,
structural (sIze. locatIon] to the content at the SIan
text),
the
courts
look more
closely at
tite law
SImIlarly..
as the crIterIa for
approval ShIfts from defInIte
ohYSlcal
dImenSions to ludaments as to aesthetIc harmony, the
courts
apply heIahtened scrutIny lest one person's aest~etIc
~enSJbIlltles sUPpress another's tree expressIon of Idpas
The
I aT.....
also fPcoanlzes
that commercIal advertIsement
has an economIC value to the property owner, as It IdentlfJes
the
establIshment
and
the
product
In
the publIC
eye and
attracts
and dIrects customers.
Thus,
a SIan ordinance musl
afford
each
owner
a
baSIC
opportunltv
to
be
seen
and
IdenttfIed. To thIS end, the SIgn Code reqUIres that ~lqns be
placed and SIzed so that vIsual access IS maIntaIned and VIews
of other SIans are not obscured
14
In
Dulaney v.
1 ,
112
Cal.
Rptr
MUn}~lpal Court, 11 Cal 3d 77, S20 P.2d
177 l1974)J the CalIfornIa Supreme Court
InvalIdated
an ordInance prohlbltlnq the
postlr.a of sIgns on
utIlltv poles wIthout the con~ent of
the owner and the c~ty
The
ordInance dId not specIfy any
standards tor the arant or
denIal
of a permIt
The Court
CIted Its parlIer deCISIon In
DIllon v. Munlclpal~ourt) 4 Cal
3d 860, 870. 484 P.2d 945,
9~1, 94 Cal
Rptr. 777, 783 (1971):
Our
crItICIsm of
the
DIllon
ordInance
applIes
equally here"
"The
glarIng and
fatal
defect 111 the
sectIon, however, IS
that
It
contaIns
no
standards
whatsoever--let dlone standards assumed to
be 'narrow, obJectIve, and defInIte' to
qUlde
theIr
and qovern
the CIty offlClal~ In
deCISIons to araot or deny permIts.
'l'he
absence
of narrowly drawn standards
leaves
the lIcenSIng
authorItIes free to
control
the content of speech
ThIS they
may
not do
11 Cal.ld at 86
520 P 2d at
8 ,
112
Ci'll _
Rptr.
at
784
(Cltatlon
omItted)
ThIS presents a dIlemma.
Aesthetlc ludqments are almost
ImpOSSIble
to quantIfy or
Ob]ectIfy--some sUbjectIve opInIon
of
beauty or
uqllness
IS
IneVItable.
However"
t.he
laTIi
reqUIres
both
speCIfIC, obJectlve
standards and artlculable
flndlngs
where
the qovernment acts
on dlscrptlonary permIts
concernInq
the use at property
If the ARB IS to retaIn some
15
d1scretlonary
control
over
slqns
that meet
the
phYSIcal
requIrement<=;
deCISIons
of
that
the 51qn Code, It
must Q1Ve reasons tor 1tS
are
suffl.cl.ently
obJectIve
to
pass
COl"\st1tut1onal
c;crutlny
If the permIt process 15 ~OO rIqId,
there
15 a r1sk of a ludlc1al
flndlnq that ~he S~gn Code has
reached turther than necessary or has stIfled exoreSSlon to an
~mpermlss1ble extent.
As
Y I n C J"J2j:: .
the Supreme Court observed 1n both ~etro~edla and
the orohIb1tlon ot Slgos whose accumulatIon presents
an aesthet1C blloht may well be the only satIsfactory solutlon
to the problem. It lS the OOlnlon of the Clty Attorney rhat
prohIbItIon
of
types
not
of ~lans
that
are large, bulky,
than necessary"
and
to
permanent
accomplIsh
does
the
., reacl'1
further
C1ty'S
qoal
of
f"nCOUradlnq
aO
attractlve
muniCIPal
enV1ronment and abat1ng v1sual bl1ght
Moreover: a
oroperty owner orecluded from construct1nq a oole slqn or roof
Slqn may st111 advert1se and be IdentIfIed throu~h a perm1tted
type
of ~lqn and may obtaIn an
"ad]ustmel"'lt" If he or she can
demonstrate
that
strIct
adherence
to
the SIgn
Code would
operate dS a hardshIP by orevent1nq effectIve commun1catlon.
The
SIgn Code operates In
three prImary ways, 1n order
to fulf1ll 1ts purposes nf promotLna munIcIpal aesthetIcs and
traffIC satety'
(1) It orohIblts certaIn types of 519ns, e q
pole
Slans
and
roof
SlOns,
(2] It sets
SIze and 10cat1on
standards
dpproval
for
of
perm1tted
each
types
and
of
slqns.
( 3 )
It reqUIres
WhIle the
SIgn
SIan
program
prohlblt1.0nS
requ1rements,
and
the
obJectIve
standards
meet
COl"\stltut1onal
the ab'>ence of
Cl ty
A..ttorney
tOUl"\d that
16
standards for desIgn reVIew In the earlIer verSIon of thE> SIan
Code appeared to be unconstItutIonal: because (1) there were
no standards by WhICh fl~dlnq~ necessary for ~upport and
rpVIPW of the ARB's dIscretIonary deCISIons could be made and
(2) the llnrpstrlcted subc;tJ tutlOD of the aesthetIC lUdament of
the
ARB
for
that
of the SIan owner
mIGht be hpld to reach
further than necessary to proLect the publIC IntE>rest.
WhIle
the
courts
have not
endorsed partIcular "magIC
are some aesthptIc conceots
words"
for
sIqn aoproval: there
that
appear
to
be suffIcIently concrete
and accepted to be
defenSIble.
A CIty
clearly
i)as the ....Ight
to DregerVi?' 1...hp
unIque
cha racte t-
of
an
hIstorIC
bUIldlna or
dIstrIct.
A
dlStUlct
archItectural
style may be
readIly determIned ~nd
plalnlv
stated,
It IS neIther
unreasonable nor dIffIcult to
reqUIre
that
the
style
of the 51gn
be harmonIOUS wllh the
style
at
the
hI5torlC
dl.strlct
or
landmark
The
same
orInC1ple would allow ~IQn rtlsapproval where the deslon of the
SIgn
IS
Inconaruou<,
or
detracts
from an
ascertaInable
arc hIt e c t L1 r a 1
fe-ature-
at
a b'llldlnq or
nC1qhborhood WIth a
dIstInct archItectural IdentILv.
A 51gn may not be dlsaoproved because at It~ content or
messaqp
However~ If a SIgn IS so confUSInq or Intense as to
constItute
a traffIC hazard or obscure other slgrs, 1t may be
dIsapproved on that baSIS.
The SIgn
Code
as
re-draftE>d
Incorporates
the above
orlncIples as standards for denIal of SIgn apollcatlons.
Both
t hE'
ARB
and
the
PI a nrn t)q CommI S S Ion a ooroved
thf' reVIsed
17
standards
as
an
approprIate
and workablE'
balance betwE-'en
desIreable dIscretIon and necessary oblectlvlty.
II ComplIanCE' WIth StatE' Law
Chapter 2 5 of DIVlSlon 3 of the CalIfornIa BusInes'. &
ProfeSSlons
Code.
SectIon
5490-5499,
1 unl ts thE>
extent to
WhlCh
cltles can regulate "on-premIses advertIsIng dIsulays
"
WIth certaIn 5DecIflc exceptlo~s.
fNlo
on-premIses
advertIslnq
dlsplay
shall be compelled to be rE>moved or
abated.
and
Its
customary maIntenance.
use:
or
repaIr
shall
not
be
lImIted.
whether
or
not removal
or llmltatlon IS
reauIred
regulatIon
because
of
any ordInance
or
ot any CIty or county. wlthouL
the payment of faIr and lust compensatlon.
Sectlon 5491.
There are two prImary exceptlons to the requirement that
comoensatlon
be
paId
to
the
owner
at
a slqn
sublect to
muniCIpal
prOVIdes:
requlatlon.
removal,
or abatement
SpctIon S494
The ordInance and regulatIons of any
CIty or
county,
Introduced
or
adopted
orJor to March 12, 1983,
nonconformlnq. lawfully In
WhICh
make
place erected
on-premlsec;
advertlslna
dlsplavs,
and
WhICh have prOVIded tor amortIzatIon tor
the lawfulJy ]n place nonconformlnq SIgns,
shall not be c;ublect to SectIon 5491.
18
The CIty'S ArchItectural RevIew Board IS currently uSIng
the standards contdlned ID the draft Slon OrdInanCE' a~proved
bv
the
Pla~nlna CommIssIon
on
June
29, 1981
as Its SIgn
'luldellnes
The draft ordlnancp has ~pver been Introducpd by
the
CIty CouncIl.
Even If
the draft ordInance IS consIdered
to
be
a
"regulatIon"
of the ARB
for purposes of revlPwlnq
aoollcatlons
for new SIgns, It
cannot be consIdered to "have
provIded
for
amortIzatIon
of
the
lawfully
In
olace
nonconformIng Slans
"
Therefore, any current regulatIons used
by ARB dnd the SIgn ordlndnce that wIll be adopted by the CIty
CouncIl are sublect to the provIsIons of SectIon 5491
ThE'
second malor
exceptIon
to the
Just compensatIon
requlrf'ment
15
SectIon S497, WhIch
allows CILles to reqUIre
uncompensatE'd removal of Slans meetlna ten crIterIa, IncludIng
( a )
SIgns
that
dId not comply WIth
laws In effect at
the tIme of theIr constructIon and erectIon or use
(bl
S]qns
whose
use
has
ceased or
whose
oarent
structure
has
been
abandonpd by the owner
for at Least 90
days
Ic) SIgns that are more than 50% destroyed and (an~ot
be repaIred wlthln 30 days of the date ot destructIon.
[d}
Where
a slqn lS remodelpd
(outsIde of a changp of
['opy) .
or the parent bUlldlnq ]s remodeled and the dIsplay IS
affectpd,
or
the cost of remodelIng
the 51gn exceeds ~O% of
the cost of remodellnq the bUIldIng
(e} Slans that are relocated
( f )
Where
there
IS an agreement
between the CIty and
the owner for removal of tne slqn.
19
( g)
(j-l]
Temporary Slg0S.
Slqns
WhICh
"farel or may become
a danoer to the
publIC or [arel unsafe."
(1) SIGnS WhICh constItute a traftIc hazard not created
bV relocatIon of streets or hIghways or bv acts ot a CIty
SectIon 9920 of the Slqn Code has been modIfIed to allow
maXImum cov~rage
under
the
EllIS
BIll.
The amortIzatIon
aerlod
ha,>
been
amended
to requIre
removal of "temporary"
Slans
wIthIn
SIX
months
Mandatory
removal
wIthout
comoensatlon
IS
prOVIded wherever
allowable
under SectIon
5497 "Permanent" s19ns protected by the EllIS BIll must be
removed after 15 years trom the adoptIon of the ordInance as
permItted bv BUSIness & ProfeSSIons Code SectIon 5495(d)
BUDGET IMPACT
Enforcement of the SI9n Ordln~nce may l'eaUlre addItIonal
staff ThIS Issue, alona WIth antIcIoated revenue from the
fees, WIll be conSIdered In the 1985-86 Budget
In
an
effort
to respond to
concerns expressed by the
bUSIness
communIty, statf WIll be condUCIng publIC workshops
enforcemenr and lrnolementatlon of the OrdInance. As
ot! the
reqUIred under SectIon 9923, a Slqn Handbook must be developed
WIthIn 6 months of OrdInance adoptIon Staff estImates the
cost of thl<; orolect WIll be 56JOOO, based on development and
prIntIna of other SImIlar documents for publIC dIstrIbutIon In
the
Plannlnq
and
Zon1nq
DIVISIon.
ThIS sum
IS aVdI1able
WIthIn eXIstIng approprIatIon authorIty
20
E~VIRONMEMTAL IMPACT
The Department of Commun~ty and EconomIC Development has
revIewed the prooosed SIgn Code and determIned
that It 1S
exemot
tram the Cal~fornla Env~ronmental
Qual~ty Act (CEQAI
because
Its
adoptIon WIll
not
result
~n any s1gnlflcant
envIronmental
~mpac t .
The
NotIce
of
ExemptIon
and
accompanYlng analysIs
are attached as Attachment
1 to thIS
Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION
It
IS
respectfully recommended that
the accompanYlnq
ordInance be Introduced for fIrst readInq.
Prepared by' Robert M Myers, CIty Attorney
Stephen S. Stark) ASSIstant CIty Attorney
21