Digital Billboards in the City of Los Angeles: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Digital Billboards in the City of Los Angeles:

Description:

LA Outdoor Advertising: Suit filed against the City in December 2007. At issue: Constitutional challenges to the City s billboard ban and freeway limitations, ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:30
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: JaneElli1
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Digital Billboards in the City of Los Angeles:


1
Digital Billboards in theCity of Los Angeles
  • The Recent History. Questions Presented.
  • Los Angeles City Planning Commission
  • October 16, 2008

2
The Citys Governing Regulations
  • By ordinance adopted in February 2002, the City
    created an Off-Site Sign Periodic Inspection
    Program. LAMC 91.6205.18. The Program provided
    for off-site sign inspections, creation of a
    citywide inventory, orders to comply for Code
    violations, removals, and fees.
  • By ordinance adopted thereafter, the City banned
    off-site signs except those permitted by specific
    plan, supplemental use district, development
    agreement or relocation agreement. The ordinance
    further provided that legally permitted existing
    signs shall not be altered or enlarged. LAMC
    12.21A7(l).
  • (continued next slide)

3
Governing Regulations (cont.)
  • By ordinance adopted in December 2007, in
    anticipation of the uniform building code to take
    effect on January 1, 2008, the City transferred
    certain of its existing Sign Regulations from the
    Building Code to the Planning and Zoning Code.
    The City Council unanimously adopted the transfer
    ordinance (Reyes absent).
  • The Citys Sign Regulations are now contained in
    Article 4.4 of the Planning and Zoning Code and
    Division 62 of the Building Code. LAMC
    14.4.1-20 and 91.6201 91.62.16. Among many
    other provisions, the regulations define off-site
    signs, limit sign light intensity to three foot
    candles above ambient lighting, require traffic
    hazard evaluation for signs visible from and
    located within 500 feet of a freeway, and
    prohibit signs within 2000 feet of a freeway if
    mainly viewed from the freeway or its off-ramp.

4
Selected Litigation 1
  • Clear Channel/CBS Suit filed by Clear Channel
    and CBS (then Viacom Outdoor) against the City in
    September 2002. At issue a challenge to the
    Citys inspection program and fee. In October
    2002, the District Court enjoined the City from
    enforcing its sign inspection program. The Ninth
    Circuit vacated the injunction in August 2003. In
    March 2006, the District Court ruled in the
    Citys favor on the constitutional claims
    regarding content neutrality of the inspection
    program. Settled February 2007 as part of Vista
    settlement (next slide).
  • Settlement Facts CBS acknowledged that it has
    1,628 sign structures and Clear Channel
    acknowledged that it has 1,657 sign structures in
    the City.
  • Key Settlement Terms companies to deliver
    billboard inventory to the City 420 credits per
    company to modernize (convert to digital), add up
    to 75 cut-outs/extensions and 100 double panels,
    and permit certain post 1986 structures not in
    conformance with permits issue permits for
    pre-1986 structures and for 1986-1998 structures
    that could have been lawfully erected removal of
    49 (3) structures per company removal of post
    1998 structures that have no permit and payment
    of reduced inspection fees.

5
Selected Litigation 2
  • Vista Suit filed by Vista against the City in
    October 2002. Regency, Clear Channel, and CBS
    (then known as Viacom Outdoor) filed
    cross-complaints against the City. At issue a
    challenge to the Citys inspection program and
    fee. In February 2006, the trial court ruled in
    the Citys favor on all state constitutional
    claims. The order did not address the federal
    constitutional issues (which were addressed in
    the federal litigation) or the propriety of the
    amount of the fee. Settled August 2005.
  • Settlement Facts Vista acknowledged that it
    could not locate permits for at least 500 of its
    8-Sheet panels and that all 170 backlit City
    Lights billboards and many 8-Sheets do not
    strictly conform to their permits.
  • Key Settlement Terms joint creation of billboard
    inventory removal of a minimum of 500
    non-permitted panels retention and permits for
    835 structures not conforming to permits
    modernizing (convert to City Lights Boards) and
    permits for 280 City Lights structures (461
    panels) and payment of reduced inspection fees.

6
Selected Litigation 2 (cont.)
  • Regency Outdoor Cross-complaint filed against
    the City in the Vista lawsuit (see previous
    slide). At issue a challenge to the Citys
    inspection fee. Settled March 2007.
  • Settlement Facts Regency represented that it has
    150 sign structures in the City.
  • Key Settlement Terms Regency to deliver
    billboard inventory to the City 38 credits to
    modernize (conversion to digital) structures, add
    up to 6 cut-outs/extensions, add up to 9 double
    panels, and permit certain post 1986 structures
    not in conformance with permits issue permits
    for pre-1986 structures and for 1986-1998
    structures that could have been lawfully erected
    removal of 5 (3) structures removal of post
    1998 structures that have no permit and payment
    of reduced inspection fees.

7
Selected Litigation 3
  • Metro Lights Suit filed against the City in
    February 2004. At issue a constitutional
    challenge to the Citys billboard ban. The
    District Court ruled in August 2007 that the
    billboard ban violates the First Amendment
    because it was not narrowly tailored to
    accomplish the Citys visual blight and traffic
    hazard goals in light of the Citys street
    furniture agreement with Viacom that permits
    billboards. This ruling is on appeal to the Ninth
    Circuit, which heard oral argument in June 2008.

8
Selected Litigation 4 and 5
  • World Wide Rush Suit filed against the City in
    January 2007. At issue Constitutional challenges
    to the Citys billboard ban. The District Court
    granted summary judgment and issued a permanent
    injunction against the City in August 2008, based
    on its ruling that the Citys billboard
    regulations permit it unfettered discretion in
    the determination of whether and where to allow
    billboards. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
  • LA Outdoor Advertising Suit filed against the
    City in December 2007. At issue Constitutional
    challenges to the Citys billboard ban and
    freeway limitations, alleging arbitrary
    application of these rules and arbitrary grant of
    billboard entitlements to others. Still in the
    pleading stages.
  • (There are other billboard lawsuits this surveys
    only 5 major cases.)

9
Related City Council Actions
  • 11/1/00 Motion to require conditional use permit
    for all billboards.
  • 1/16/02 Motion ADOPTED to undertake a billboard
    inventory and a survey of billboard practices in
    surrounding jurisdictions.
  • 9/8/04 Motion to restart the Off-Site Sign
    Inspection Program (OSSIP).
  • 11/5/04 Motion to create regulations to enable
    revocation of billboard permits on properties
    with unresolved DBS violations.
  • 10/25/05 Motion to investigate killing trees
    near LAX for billboards (Regency) and to restart
    OSSIP.
  • 1/31/07 Motion ADOPTED that the billboard
    inventories are not proprietary and should be
    subject to the California Public Records Act.
  • 4/13/07 Resolution ADOPTED to support State
    Legislation (Ridley-Thomas) to remove the
    rebuttable presumption that billboards older
    than 5 years are lawful and to remove the
    requirement that just compensation be paid on the
    removal of illegally altered billboards.
  • (continued next slide)

10
City Council Actions (cont.)
  • 5/23/07 Motion to require DBS status report on
    unlawful billboard modernizations.
  • 9/12/07 Motion to require DBS status report on
    modernizations, number of billboards allowed via
    settlement, options for limiting digital
    billboards, inspection program, and inventories.
    DBS delivered reports dated Dec. 3, 2007 and Feb.
    21, May 23 and May 27, 2008.
  • 4/11/08 Motion to create penalties relating to
    illegal supergraphics.
  • 7/29/08 Motion to revise the Citys sign
    ordinances to create easily enforceable time,
    place, and manner restrictions and clear sign
    district criteria. Referred to DCP on Sept. 9,
    2008.
  • 10/1/08 Motion for report from City Attorney on
    sign credits, digital conversions, and CEQA under
    settlement agreements and on legal and
    legislative options to limit residential
    billboard blight.
  • 10/3/08 Motion to require DBS report on existing
    billboard inventory and for partnership with
    community developed inventories.
  • 10/10/08 Motion to learn CEQA applicability,
    locations and zoning rules pertinent to
    modernizations, and whether settlements were an
    unlawful surrender of Citys police power.

11
Building Safety Questions
  • Regarding the Off-Site Sign Inspection Program,
    what is the status of our inventory, permits, and
    inspections? How many billboards exist? How many
    have been cited? How many have been removed?
  • Regarding digital billboards, how many conversion
    and new applications have been granted? Denied?
    Pending? What standards do you use to evaluate
    these requests? Are these standards codified and
    unambiguous?
  • In evaluating digital applications, what
    consideration is given to operating hours, energy
    impacts, illumination, location, spacing, traffic
    hazard, or other environmental consequences?

12
Legal Questions
  • What benefits did the City receive from its
    settlements with Vista, Clear Channel, CBS, and
    Regency?
  • Under Trancas and League of Residential
    Neighborhood Advocates, which speak to the
    primacy of a Citys police power and its zoning
    regulations, did the lawsuit settlement powers of
    the City extend to granting the various billboard
    entitlements to Clear Channel, CBS, Vista, and
    Regency?
  • Was the City authorized to settle these cases and
    grant these entitlements without conducting any
    CEQA review?
  • Does the CPC have the authority to initiate an
    ICO prohibiting the conversion of static
    billboards to digital technology? If not, why
    not? If yes, are there any limitations on the ICO
    terms?

13
End
  • Prepared for the CPC by Jane Usher
  • With special thanks to the City Attorney for
    review and suggested corrections to the recent
    history slides.
  • All remaining errors are mine.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com