City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council consider:
1. The adoption of an Urgency Ordinance amending Chapter 17.330 of the Culver
City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) pertaining to the processing and permitting of signs.
(This action requires four affirmative votes of the Council.); and
2. The introduction of an Ordinance (non-urgency) amending Chapter 17.330 of the
CCMC pertaining to the processing and permitting of signs.
If adopted, the Urgency Ordinance will take effect immediately. The non-urgency
Ordinance is substantively identical to the Urgency Ordinance, and is recommended as
a back-up to the Urgency Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The City has been involved in extensive federal court litigation over several provisions
of the CCMC regulating signs. The first case was brought by plaintiff Lynne Davidson
and was formally titled Lynne Davidson v. City of Culver City, United States Central
District Court, Case No. CV02-2566 (“Davidson I”). The matter was assigned to the
Hon. Judge Gary Feess. Judge Feess issued a ruling on April 10, 2003, finding that
Section 13.02.200 of Title 13 of the Culver City Municipal Code was constitutional, but
that certain language in Section 37-78.D.4b of Title 17 was unconstitutionally vague.
Meeting Date:11/28/05 Item Number: A-1
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of: 1) Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance
Amending Chapter 17.330 of the Culver City Municipal Code Pertaining to
Processing and Permitting of Signs; and 2) Introduction of an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 17.330 of the Culver City Municipal Code Pertaining to
Processing and Permitting of Signs
Contact Person/Dept.: Carol Schwab
and Heather Iker/City Attorney
Phone Number: (310) 253-5660
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification:
Master Notification List on 11/23/05
Department Approval: Carol Schwab,
City Attorney
CAO Approval:
Martin Cole for Jerry Fulwood 11/21/05
City Controller Approval: N/ACity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
The City Council also formed an Ad Hoc Committee to examine numerous sign issues
in Culver City and make recommendations to the City Council. The Ad Hoc Committee
was supported by City staff and met on several occasions before issuing its final report
and recommendations to the City Council on October 13, 2003. A minority report was
also issued.
The City took several additional steps in light of the court’s ruling and the
recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee, including adoption of Ordinance No. 2003-
005 to amend Chapter 13 pertaining to signs in the public right-of-way and Ordinance
No. 2005-002 to amend Section 37-78.D.4b of Title 17 pertaining to the placement of
signs, banners, and pennants in the public right-of-way.
Lynne Davidson and Sandra Kallander subsequently filed another federal lawsuit titled
Lynne Davidson, etc. v. City of Culver City, United States Central District Court, Case
No. CV04-2220 (“Davidson II”) to again challenge the City’s sign provisions. The matter
was again assigned to Judge Feess, who dismissed the case and awarded the City
$100,000 in attorneys’ fees for a frivolous suit. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral argument was held on October 18, 2005.
The City has been diligently evaluating the impact of its policies on free speech
activities throughout the City. As part of that effort, the City adopted a Courtyard Policy
relating to Free Speech Guidelines on May 16, 2005. The City has been at work in
reviewing the totality of the various policies and provisions within Culver City that have
First Amendment implications, all of which deal with weighty constitutional issues. The
City has recently completed revisions to its entire zoning ordinance, but these revisions
only renumbered and reorganized the City’s Sign Code. The City’s initial plan was to
conduct a thorough substantive revision of the entire sign code at a later date. Recent
events have led the City to conclude that some of these substantive revisions cannot
wait and require this urgency measure. The urgency is based in part on the following:
First, some billboard companies have deliberately engaged in the unpermitted and/or
illegal erection of billboards in surrounding and nearby jurisdictions. This practice is
documented in City of Riverside v. Valley Outdoor, (2005 WL 2233617 (Cal. App. 4
Dist.), and is at issue in the related case of Valley Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Riverside, 04-
55029, which is currently pending before the same panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal that is reviewing the appeal in Davidson II. The practice of illegally erecting
billboards without permits and in violation of local ordinances was also documented in a
recent article published in the Los Angeles Times. See Ted Rohrlich, Big Sign Firm
Accused of Corruption, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2005, at A1.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Second, billboard companies have recently challenged sign ordinances in several
jurisdictions in southern California, as demonstrated by the decisions of the United
States District Court in Horizon Outdoor, LLC v. City of Industry, 228 F.Supp.2d 1113
(C.D. Cal. 2002); Horizon Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 374
F.Supp.2d 881 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Covenant Media of Cal., L.L.C. v. City of Huntington
Park, 377 F.Supp.2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego,
381 F.Supp.2d 1250 (S.D. Cal. 2005); and Get Outdoors II, L.L.C. v. City of Lemon
Grove, 378 F.Supp.2d 1232 (S.D. Cal. 2005).
Due to these developments, these revisions to the Sign Code are presented on an
urgency basis in order for the City to update and revise its sign ordinance and balance
the City’s needs to promote the public’s health, safety, and welfare with the important
free speech rights of individuals and organizations.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance is necessary in order to refine and update the City’s Sign
Code. The amendments include the addition of permit processing and enforcement
procedures, the addition of various findings, and the refinement of code language. It is
important to note that this ordinance does not allow for any signs previously precluded
under the existing code, nor does it preclude any signs previously allowed under the
existing Sign Code. These refinements are necessary because the City has important
planning and other governmental interests in the regulation of signs both within and
outside the public right-of-way.
The City’s governmental interests include:
(1) Protecting the free speech rights of individuals and organizations;
(2) Regulating signs in a constitutional manner;
(3) Preserving the interest of community aesthetics;
(4) Preserving vehicular, bicyclists and pedestrian traffic safety;
(5) Protecting and preserving property values;
(6) Improving the visual environment of the City; and
(7) Ensuring the overall quality of life for persons living, working, and visiting
within Culver City.
Without a revised and effective sign ordinance, residential, commercial, industrial and
other sections of the City can quickly deteriorate, with detrimental consequences to
social, environmental, and economic values. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
The new elements of the ordinance include:
A. New Findings (pps. 1-4). The City has added the findings found in Section 1 to
better explain its governmental interest in the regulation of signs and reaffirm its
ban of off site signs, which has been in place since 1995.
B. Refinement of Language (pps. 4-8). These provisions clarify and refine the City’s
content-neutral policy and reaffirm that the City is not and has not been
concerned with the actual text of any on site or off site sign.
C. Timing and Processing of Sign Decisions/Appeals (pps. 8-14). These provisions
provide a comprehensive and clear process for submitting applications, decision-
making, and appeals.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Urgency Ordinance Amending Chapter 17.330 pertaining to processing and
permitting of signs.
2. Ordinance (non-urgency) Amending Chapter 17.330 pertaining to processing and
permitting of signs.
3. Current Chapter 17.330.
4. Cases and article cited in the Proposed Ordinances will be on file with the City
Clerk and available for public inspection. Individual copies will be provided to all
Council Members.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance Amending Chapter 17.330 of the Culver City Municipal
Code pertaining to processing and permitting of signs; and
2. Introduce an Ordinance (Non-Urgency) Amending Chapter 17.330 of the Culver City
Municipal Code pertaining to processing and permitting of signs.
•
MEETING DATE 11/28/05
AGENDA ITEM Consideration of 1) Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance
Amending Chapter 17 330 of the Culver City Municipal Code
Pertaining to Processing and Permitting of Signs, and
2) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 330 of
the Culver City Municipal Code Pertaining to Processing and
Permitting of Signs
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1 Urgency Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 330 pertaining to
processing and permitting of signs 1-19
2 Ordinance (non-urgency) Amendmg Chapter 17 330 pertammg to
processing and permitting of signs 20-38
3 Current Chapter 17 330 39-65
4 Cases and article cited in the Proposed Ordmances (On file with
the City Clerk and available for public inspection Individual
copies provided to all Council Members ) 66-296
•
•1
ORDINANCE NO 2005-008
• |1010|AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17 330 OF THE
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PROCESSING AND PERMITTING OF SIGNS AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF TO TAKE EFFECT
IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION|10101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
• 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
27
28
The City Council of the City of Culver DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows
SECTION 1 FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Culver City (the
"City") hereby finds, determines, and declares that
A It is necessary and appropriate to immediately amend Chapter 17 330
of the Culver City Municipal Code titled "Signs" to refine and update its regulations
of the time, place, and manner of the placement of signs The City has an
overriding interest in planning and regulating the placement of signs on both public
and private property within City in order to (1) protect the free speech rights of
individuals and organizations, (2) regulate signs in a constitutional manner, (3) serve
the interest of community aesthetics, (4) preserve vehicular and pedestrian traffic
safety, (5) protect and preserve property values, (6) improve the visual environment
of the City, and (7) ensure the overall quality of life for persons living, working and
visiting within Culver City Without a revised and effective sign ordinance
residential, commercial, industrial and other sections of the City can quickly
deteriorate, with detrimental consequences to social, environmental, and economic
values
B This Ordinance is adopted as an urgency measure pursuant to Section
510 of the Culver City Charter, and in accordance with California Government Code
§ 36937, for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety The
Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage by at least four
/
affirmative votes, which is equivalent to a four-fifths vote of the City Council
1C This Urgency Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation
of the public peace, health and safety The immediate need for the Ordinance is
IP
based in part on the fact that (1) there is an ever-increasing and evolving body of
case law governing the regulation of signs and billboards, (2) billboard interests
have recently challenged sign ordinances in several jurisdictions within southern
California as demonstrated by the decisions of the United States District Court in
Horizon Outdoor, LLC v City of Industry
228 F Supp 2d 1113 (C D Cal 2002),
Outdoor Media Group, Inc v City of Beaumont, 374 F Supp 2d 881 (C D Cal
2005), Covenant Media of Cal ,LLC v City of Huntington Park, 377 F Supp 2d
828 (C D Cal 2005), Get Outdoors II, LLC v City of San Diego, 381 F Supp 2d
1250 (S D Cal 2005), Get Outdoors II, LLC v City of Lemon Grove, 378
F Supp 2d 1232 (S D Cal 2005), (3) some billboard companies have made it their
practice to erect billboards in the middle of the night without a permit or in a manner
that is illegal or frustrates safety inspections, as detailed in the case of City of
•
Riverside v Valley Outdoor, Inc , 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ) and by Ted
Rohrlich, Big Sign Firm Accused of Corruption, Los Angeles Times, October 23
2005, at Al and (4) it would be detrimental to the City its residents, and its
business community if during the process of updating its sign regulations, parties
seeking to either evade the implementation of the new regulations or challenge the
City s existing regulations were able to place or install signs without limitation or in a
manner that would cause some or all of the very threats to the public health, safety,
and welfare that the City seeks to prevent by regulating signs
D In developing this Ordinance, the City Council is mindful of legal
principles relating to content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations of signs
billboards and postings and the City Council declares it does not intend to
suppress or infringe upon expressive activities protected by the United States and
California Constitutions Rather, the City Council intends to enact reasonable|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
I-1
• 2|10101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
•
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
content-neutral time place, and manner regulations that are narrowly tailored to
serve its substantial and legitimate interests in protecting the public health, safety,
and welfare and leave ample alternative avenues for protected expression The City
Council takes legislative notice of various court decisions including the United States
Supreme Court decisions regarding local regulation of signs, billboards, and
postings in Metromedia, Inc v City of San Diego, 453 U S 490, 101 S Ct 2992, 69
L Ed 2d 800 (1981), and Members of the City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent,
466 U S 789, 104 S Ct 2118,80 L Ed 3d 772 (1984), the decisions of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gerntsen v City of Los Angeles, 994
F 2d 570 (9th Cir 1993), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc v City of Los Angeles, 340
F 3d 810 (9th Cir 2003), and the state court of appeal decision in City and County
of San Francisco v Eller Outdoor Advertising, 192 Cal App 3d 643 (1987)
E The City finds and declares that it has a substantial and legitimate
interest in regulating signs in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare of
the City and its residents in order to preserve, protect, and promote the (1)
constitutionally protected free speech rights of individuals and organizations, (2)
safety of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, (3) commercial and residential
property values, (4) community aesthetics and the visual environment of the City so
as to promote commerce, investment, tourism and visitation, and (5) the overall
quality of living for persons residing or doing business in, or visiting the City Off site
signs, including but not limited to billboard and large supergraphic signs, threaten
serious harms to Culver City s aesthetics, as well as the safe and efficient flow of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and property values Further, the very massive size
of billboards and supergraphics threaten visibility and light impairment Any new or
additional off site signs would immediately threaten the public health, safety and
welfare of the City by negatively impacting community aesthetics and the safe and
efficient flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic It is a fundamental land use policy
-3-
3A
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Culver City to prohibit the construction erection or use of any off site signs, other
than those which legally exist in the City when the prohibition was first adopted in
1995, or for which a valid permit has been issued
F Ample alternative avenues of communication exist for the
dissemination of both commercial and non-commercial messages Alternative
avenues include, but are not limited to personal communication, pamphleting, direct
mail, television, radio, and Internet communications With regard to the Internet, the
City Council further finds and declares that (1) the United States Supreme Court has
recognized that "From the publishers' point of view, [the Internet] constitutes a vast
platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of
readers viewers, researchers, and buyers" Reno v Amencan Civil Liberties Union
521 U S 844, 853, 117 S Ct 2329, 138 L Ed 2d 874 (1997), and (2) the California
Court of Appeal has found that 63% of adults in the United States were using the
Internet as of 2003, and that, "the average computer blogger has in effect, his or here
own printing press to reach the world " In re Stevens, 119 Cal App 4th 1228, 1235-
1236 (2004) The City Council therefore finds as the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit did, that the Internet is an ample alternative avenue of
communication when other mediums are subject to reasonable content-neutral time,
place, or manner restrictions Anheuser Busch v Schmoke, 101 F 3d 325 (4th Cir
1996) cart denied 520 U S 1204 (1997)
G A proper balancing of individual rights to free expression and the
substantial public interest protecting the public health, safety and welfare requires
the prompt hearing and judicial review as to any requests to erect signs that are
denied The time allowances for appeal and judicial review of denials of sign permit
applications in this Ordinance are the shortest fixed periods compatible with the
balancing of sound land use planning and the protection of First Amendment
freedoms The City Council finds that these time frames are reasonable in that the
-4- I City is granting or denying a sign permit within thirty (30) days of the filing of a
• 2 completed application for such permit After the filing of an appeal the Planning
3 Commission or City Council conducts a public hearing on such appeal and renders
4 a decision within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal These time frames are
5 reasonably required based on facts that include but are not limited to (1) public|10109| 6 hearings are required for certain land use decisions and require ten (10) days|1010| 7 advance notice under Sections 65091 and 65905 of the California Government
8 Code (2) the City Hall for Culver City is closed to the public on various Fridays, (3)
9 publication of a notice to the public regarding a hearing requires sufficient lead time
10 after request by the City for publication in a newspaper, and (4) Culver City is a
11 small jurisdiction and has a very limited staff These time allowances are necessary
12 to protect the free speech and due process rights of the applicant and the public to
13 speak regarding the issuance or denial of a sign permit
•
14 H Judicial review of an appeal relating to a First Amendment permit or
15 entitlement decision is available pursuant to Section 1094 8 of the California Code
16 of Civil Procedure, on an expedited basis
17 I The regulation of signs is a matter of City-wide importance and is
18 neither directed towards nor targeted at any particular parcel of property, person, or
19 organization
20 SECTION 2 URGENCY MEASURE Pursuant to City Charter Section 510
21 and Government Code § 36937, it is hereby declared that this Ordinance is necessary as
22 an emergency, urgency measure for preserving the public health, safety and welfare
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
•
27
28
-5-
5I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 _ 28
W
SECTION 3 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 005 of the Culver City
•
Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced as follows
17 330 005— Intent
This Chapter is a comprehensive system for the regulation of signs in the
City Sign regulation is enacted to serve the interests of community aesthetics
vehicular and pedestrian safety, to protect and preserve property values to improve
the visual environment of the City so as to promote commerce, investment, tourism,
and visitation, and the overall quality of life for persons living in, doing business in
or visiting the City The provisions of this Chapter are also intended to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare of persons driving, parking, biking, walking,
residing or conducting business within the City by reducing visual distractions to
motorists, by making signs and advertising displays more attractive, aesthetically
pleasing and more effective It is the further purpose of this Chapter that every use
of property within the City receives adequate identification The City intends to •
create a comprehensive balanced system of signs that is aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with the environment
The regulations of this Chapter are not intended to permit any violations of
the provisions of any other lawful ordinance, nor to prohibit the use of any sign
required by any law superior to that of this Ordinance
A Regulatory Interpretations All regulatory interpretations of this
Chapter are to be exercised in light of the City s message neutrality policy Where a
particular type of sign is proposed in a permit application, and the type is neither
expressly allowed nor prohibited nor restricted by this Chapter, or whenever a sign
does not qualify as a "structure" as defined in the Uniform Building Code, then the
Director shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application based on
the most similar sign type that is expressly regulated by this Chapter Architectural
compatibility shall be analyzed on the basis of size, location, color, construction
II
-6-7|1010 10
10|11
12
13
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
27
28
•|10101010101010|materials and design of the sign structure, without consideration of the message to
be displayed on a sign other than the distinction between on-site and off-site
commercial messages
B Discretionary Approvals Whenever a sign or proposed sign is
subject to any discretionary approval process, including but not limited to variance
conditional use permit or administrative use permit, then no consideration will be
given to sign copy or message to be displayed, other than a determination as to
whether the message will constitute off-site commercial copy This principle applies
equally at all levels of approval, from the Director to the City Council
C Non-communicative Aspects of Signs All rules and regulations
concerning the non-communicative aspects of signs, such as location, size, height
illumination, spacing, orientation, and so forth, stand enforceable independently of
any permit or approval process
SECTION 4 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 020 B of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-5 titled Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts Row
Heading of Directional Signs (row 4), Column Heading of Maximum Number of Signs
(column 4) The text of this cell is hereby amended to read as follows
Shall be approved by the Director based on issues of safety, line of site and
site conditions to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement
SECTION 5 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 E 2 of the Culver City
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows|109| An application for deviation from the size, location, height or
number restrictions contained in Table 3-5 may be submitted to the Director and
said deviation request shall be granted when the applicant establishes the presence
of unusual needs, circumstances, or conditions relative to restricted visibility, the
size of the property, or the number of access points that make the deviation
necessary
-7-
1I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
SECTION 6 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 Fl of the Culver City
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows|109| An electronic message sign shall be displayed only if the
information displayed is public information
SECTION 7 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 H 1 d is hereby amended
to read as follows
d An application for additional or larger gasoline station price
signs may be submitted to the Director and shall be granted if the applicant
establishes that such is necessary to meet the minimum requirements established
by County State or Federal law
SECTION 8 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs Row Heading of Event Signs
(row 4), Column Heading of Maximum Sign Area (column 2) The text of this cell is
hereby amended to read as follows
Sign area shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the message
to be displayed on the temporary event sign
SECTION 9 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs Row Heading of
Event Signs
(row 4) Column Heading of Maximum Sign Height (column 3) The text of this cell is
hereby amended to read as follows
Sign height shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the
message to be displayed on the temporary event sign
SECTION 10 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs Row Heading of Event Sign
-8-0 I (row 4) Column Heading of Maximum Number of Signs (column 4) The text of this cell
2 is hereby amended to read as follows|109| Number of signs shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for|109| permanent signs allowed by this Chapter based on the size and lot|109| configuration and ensuring no access or site impairment and without|109| consideration of the message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign|109| SECTION 11 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
8 Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Event Signs
9 (row 4) Column Heading of Additional Requirements (column 6) The text of this cell is
10 hereby amended to read as follows
11 Additional, more stringent regulations may be placed on special event
12 signs through any discretionary land use approval or business tax certificate
13 approval process required for special events by this Code based on issues of size,
14 location, color, construction materials and design of the sign without consideration of
15 the message to be displayed on the special events sign
16 SECTION 12 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
17 Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Holiday
18 Signs (row 7), Column Heading of Maximum Sign Area (column 2) The text of this cell is
19 hereby amended to read as follows
20 Sign area shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
21 permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the
22 message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
23 SECTION 13 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
24 Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs Row Heading of Holiday
25 Signs (row 7) Column Heading of Maximum Sign Height (column 3) The text of this cell
26 is hereby amended to read as follows
• 27
28
-9-
'1Sign height shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for|10 10|permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the
message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
SECTION 14 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Holiday
Signs (row 7), Column Heading of Maximum Number of Signs (column 4) The text of
this cell is hereby amended to read as follows
Number of signs shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
permanent signs allowed by this Chapter based on the size and lot
configuration and ensuring no access or site impairment and without
consideration of the message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
SECTION 15 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 L 2 a is hereby
amended to replace the word "encouraged ' with 'allowed"
SECTION 16 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 035 B 4 is hereby amended.
to read as follows
Freeway-oriented signs As used herein, are on-site signs that are
directed essentially to be visible only from a freeway and are prohibited
without a permit issued by the Director pursuant to master sign program
SECTION 17 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 035 B is hereby amended to
delete the words 'or through the approval of a master sign program" from the first
sentence|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
SECTION 18 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 050 is hereby repealed and
replaced as follows
17 330 050 — Review Process and Appeals
A Permits shall be required for the following sign types
-10-• |101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 27
28
1 All signs meeting the definition of "structure' within the
Uniform Building Code are subject to the structural requirements of
that Code, and may be mounted, erected or displayed only when a
valid building permit has been issued,|109| Signs included in the master sign program and multiple
business sign program as provided for in this Chapter,|109| Signs requiring a conditional use permit, variance or
modification as provided under this Chapter, and|109| Temporary banners as provided under this Chapter
B Sign Related Decisions and Appeals|109| Administrative Authority It is the responsibility of the
Director to enforce all provisions of this Chapter Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Title, sign related decisions shall be governed by the procedures
outlined in this Chapter|109| Sign Related Decisions Sign related decisions include
decisions on applications for sign permits, master sign programs, repair or removal
orders, abatement orders, amortization schedules, requests for interpretations, and
all other sign related matters requiring decision by the City|109| Incomplete Applications If the Director finds that any
application for a sign permit is incomplete, the applicant shall be so notified not
more than fifteen (15) calendar days after the application is received The notice
shall detail all known points of incompleteness Such writing shall be deposited in
U S mail, postage prepaid, immediately upon determination that the application is
incomplete Within fifteen (15) business days following the receipt of an amended
application or supplemental information, the Director shall again determine whether
the application is complete in accordance with the procedures set forth above
Evaluation and notification shall occur as provided above until such time as the
0application is found to be complete If the Director fails to provide notice of
•
incompleteness within fifteen (15) business days then the application shall be
deemed complete|109| Review/Standard All matters of enforcement,
interpretation and application of this Chapter, including all sign related decisions,
shall be made initially by the Director as an administrative matter, with no public
hearing required Any effected person may appeal the Director's sign related
decisions to the Planning Commission for public hearing and decision Any decision
of the Planning Commission, except appeals of an incompleteness determination,
may be appealed to the City Council for public hearing The City Council's decision
is final as to the City, but is subject to judicial review In reaching a decision, neither
the Director, Planning Commission nor City Council shall be bound by the formal
rules of evidence|109| Perfecting Appeal, Time Limit for Appeal An appeals
is effective when delivered to the City Clerk, within the required time, on a form
prescribed by the Director, accompanied by any applicable appeal fee (in an amount
set by Resolution of the City Council), signed by the appellant, identifying the matter
or decision appealed from, and stating the grounds of appeal All notices of appeal
on all sign related decisions, must be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10)
calendar days of when the appeal right arises|109| When Appeal Right Arises, Finality The right to
appeal a sign related decision arises at the earliest of when written notice of the
Director's administrative decision is deposited in the U S mail, postage prepaid,
when an appellate decision is made by vote of the appellate body in a duly noticed
hearing on the matter, when written notice of the decision is delivered or deposited
in the U S mail, postage prepaid to the applicant or appellant, or at the expiration of
the time in which the Director or appellate body is required to make a decision|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a
-12-•|101010 10
10|11
12
13
• 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•27
28|10101010101010|(unless timeliness of decision is waived by the applicant or appellant) Any sign
related decision which is not properly appealed within the required time is final At
each level of review, written notice of any sign related decision shall be sent via
United States mail to the applicant within five (5) calendar days of the decision|109| Timeliness of Decision, Waiver of Time At each level
of review, all sign related decisions (which includes any hearing when procedurally
required) shall be made within thirty (30) calendar days of when the permit
application is complete, the request for interpretation has been received, or when
the appeal has been timely and properly filed The timeliness requirements may be
waived by the applicant or appellant The failure of the Director, Planning
Commission or City Council to render any decision within the time frames
established in any part of this section shall be deemed to constitute a denial and the
applicant or appellant shall have the immediate right to appeal|109| Maintenance of Status Quo While a sign related
decision is pending, the status quo shall be maintained until the review or appeal
has run its full course, unless the subject sign is in such physical condition that it
presents a serious or immediate threat to the public health and safety, in which case
it may be abated as a public nuisance No building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical
or grading permit shall be issued for a proposed sign until the appeal process has
run its full course|10 9| Appeals The filing of an appeal within the time limit
shall stay the effective date of the decision appealed from When any related
decision is timely appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council, the
appellate body shall hold a hearing on the matter and decide the matter within the
required time period, unless the applicant or appellant waives time The decision
shall be in writing and shall state facts from the record which support any findings
made
-13-
'3Ilk|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10 Judicial Review Following exhaustion of all available 0
appellate procedures within the City, any applicant or appellant may seek judicial
review of the City s final decision pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
1094 8 This provision does not limit an applicant s or appellant's ability to seek
judicial review by other means
11 Conduct Constituting a Public Nuisance The
construction, maintenance or placement of any sign within the City in violation of
any of the terms of this Chapter is hereby found and declared to be a public
nuisance and the City Attorney or the District Attorney may in addition or in lieu of
prosecuting a criminal action hereunder, commence an action or proceeding for the
abatement, removal and enjoyment thereof, in the manner provided by law, and
shall take other steps and shall apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to
grant such relief as will abate or remove such illegal sign and to restrain and enjoin
any person(s) from conducting, operating or maintaining a sign contrary to the
•
provisions of this Article
C Hardship Exemptions|109| Where the owner/user of a proposed or existing sign
believes that compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, coupled
with unusual geographic or building design and configuration
conditions pertaining to the site, or contractual conditions limiting the
use thereof, would create an undue economic hardship on the use of
property, (s)he may apply to the Director for a hardship exemption
The Director's decision in such cases shall be based on one or more
of the following criteria
a The site is unusual in size, shape or topography
b Improvements on the site or on adjoining public or
private properties cause a visual obstruction
-14-
•1
•
c The site is improved with a multiple business
development and is encumbered by an existing contractual
obligation that precludes the modification of one or more other
existing signs for other businesses at the same time as the
installation of a new sign or a modification to an existing sign on
the same sign structure is proposed for a business on the
premises|109| Approval of a hardship exemption may be subject to
time, place and manner conditions based on issues of size, location,
color, construction materials and design of the sign without
consideration or restriction as to the message to be displayed on the
sign|109| The applicant has the burden of proof to establish that a
hardship exists based on the criteria found above
D Comprehensive Sign Programs
I Multiple Business Sign Programs
a The purpose of a multiple business sign program
is to achieve design compatibility amongst all signs displayed
on a single ownership parcel that is occupied by two or more
separate businesses
b The submittal of a multiple business sign program
shall be required for each multi-tenant development that is
occupied by two or more separate businesses at the time the
first new permanent sign or first modification to an existing
permanent sign on the premises is proposed, except that a
-15-
'S|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28multiple business sign program is not required for a project wits
an approved master sign program
c A multiple business sign program or the
equivalent approved prior to the effective date of this Chapter
or any amendment to this Chapter, shall be revised if
necessary, to conform to this Chapter at the time the first new
permanent sign or modification to an existing permanent sign is
proposed on the premises
d A multiple business sign program shall be
submitted by or with the consent of the property owner or
master lessor
e A multiple business sign program shall consist of
plans and text describing the details of all signs, existing-to-
remain, modified, and new signs, that are and that may be
displayed on the premises
f Only the types of signs allowed by the regulations
of this Chapter shall be approved under a multiple business
sign program
g The Director shall approve conditionally approve
or disapprove any application for a multiple business sign
program|109| Master Sign Programs
a The purpose of a master sign program is to
provide a mechanism by which the sign regulations established
in this Chapter can be modified to ensure that signs for a
uniquely planned or designed development or area are most
appropriate for that particular development or area
-16-
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I k)
28b A master sign program may be
i Required by the Director for any
development that requires a Site Plan Review in
compliance with Chapter 17 540, or a similar
discretionary review, or
ii Requested by the owner or master lessor of
a development, or
iii Initiated by the City or the Culver City
Redevelopment Agency for a particular area in
furtherance of a specific plan, revitalization program,
overlay zone, or other area wide planning tool
c A master sign program may include provisions
that are more and/or less restrictive than the regulations
established in this Chapter as related to issues of size, location,
color, construction materials and design of the sign but without
consideration as to the message to be displayed on the sign
based on the particular unique features of the development
d Each master sign program applicant shall show
why the modifications requested are warranted and how the
total sign proposal for the development meets, on balance, the
general purpose and intent of this Chapter
e A master sign program, or the equivalent, that was
approved by the City or Redevelopment Agency prior to the
effective date of this Chapter or any amendment to this
Chapter, shall be deemed to conform to this Chapter
-17-
1I f The Director shall approve, conditionally approve.|109| or disapprove any application for a master sign program|109| g A new master sign program approval shall be|109| obtained for substantial revisions to the original approval as|109| determined by the Director|109| SECTION 19 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS Adoption of this Ordinance is
7 not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Public Resources Code
8 § 21000 et seq
The effect of the Ordinance will be to preserve the status quo with respect
9 to the time, place, and manner in which signs may be erected in the City because the
10 Ordinance neither allows any sign that is currently prohibited by the Culver City Municipal
11 Code nor prohibits any sign that is currently allowed by the Culver City Municipal Code
12 The City Council therefore finds that the Ordinance does not qualify as a project' subject
13 to CEQA under Public Resources Code § 21065 because it will not result in either a direct
14 or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment Independent of
410
15 this determination, the City Council also finds that the Ordinance qualifies for exemption
16 from CEQA under 14 Cal Code Regs § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty
17 that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the
18 environment In accordance with Public Resources Code § 21152(b), the City will issue a
19 Notice of Exemption after the Ordinance is adopted The Notice of Exemption will be filed
20 with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles where it will be available for public
21 inspection pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21152(b)-(c)
22 SECTION 20 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence clause,
23 phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of
24 competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
25 of this Ordinance The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and
26 adopted this Ordinance, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that
27 one or more provisions may be declared invalid Further in the event of the invalidation of
28
-18-
ti)
|1010|S|1010101010101010 10|any provision of this Ordinance, it is the intention of the City Council that any person
seeking to erect a sign in the City should be nonetheless subject to all remaining
requirements of the Ordinance or the City's Municipal Code, including, but not limited to
location, design, and building requirements and the revocation, violation, and penalty
provisions, which the City Council has already or would have adopted independent of any
other provision in this Ordinance
SECTION 21 PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sections 510 and 514 of the City
Charter, this Ordinance shall be introduced, passed and adopted at one and the same
meeting and shall become effective immediately The reasons for this urgency are set
10
11
12
forth in Paragraphs A — I, inclusive, of Section 1 of this Ordinance Pursuant to Sections
512 and 517 of the City Charter, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the
adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published
13 in the Culver City News and shall post this Ordinance or a summary thereof in at least
•
14 three places within the City
15 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005
16
17
18
ALBERT M VERA, Mayor
19
City of Culver City, California
20
21
ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM
22
23
24
CHRISTOPHER ARMENTA, City Clerk CAROL A SCHWAB, City Attorney
25
26
•
27
28
-19-
iito
ORDINANCE NO 2005-008
e
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17 330 OF THE
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PROCESSING AND PERMITTING OF SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Culver DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows
SECTION 1 FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Culver City (the
City') hereby finds, determines, and declares that
A It is necessary and appropriate to amend Chapter 17 330 of the Culver
City Municipal Code titled "Signs" to refine and update its regulations of the time,
place, and manner of the placement of signs The City has an overriding interest in
planning and regulating the placement of signs on both public and private property
within City in order to (1) protect the free speech rights of individuals and
organizations (2) regulate signs in a constitutional manner, (3) serve the interest of.
community aesthetics, (4) preserve vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety (5)
protect and preserve property values (6) improve the visual environment of the City
and (7) ensure the overall quality of life for persons living, working and visiting within
Culver City Without a revised and effective sign ordinance residential commercial,
industrial and other sections of the City can quickly deteriorate, with detrimental
consequences to social, environmental, and economic values
B This Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace
health, and safety The need for the Ordinance is based in part on the fact that (1)
there is an ever-increasing and evolving body of case law governing the regulation
of signs and billboards, (2) billboard interests have recently challenged sign
ordinances in several jurisdictions within southern California as demonstrated by the
decisions of the United States District Court in Horizon Outdoor, LLC v City of
Industty, 228 F Supp 2d 1113 (C D Cal 2002) Outdoor Media Group, Inc v City le|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Beaumont, 374 F Supp 2d 881 (C D Cal 2005), Covenant Media of Cal ,LLC v
City of Huntington Park, 377 F Supp 2d 828 (C D Cal 2005) Get Outdoors II, LLC
v City of San Diego, 381 F Supp 2d 1250 (S D Cal 2005) Get Outdoors II, L L C
v City of Lemon Grove, 378 F Supp 2d 1232 (S D Cal 2005), (3) some billboard
companies have made it their practice to erect billboards in the middle of the night
without a permit or in a manner that is illegal or frustrates safety inspections, as
detailed in the case of City of Riverside v Valley Outdoor, Inc , 2005 WL 2233617
(Cal App 4 Dist ) and by Ted Rohrlich, Big Sign Firm Accused of Corruption, Los
Angeles Times, October 23, 2005, at Al, and (4) it would be detrimental to the City,
its residents, and its business community if during the process of updating its sign
regulations, parties seeking to either evade the implementation of the new
regulations or challenge the City's existing regulations were able to place or install
signs without limitation or in a manner that would cause some or all of the very
threats to the public health, safety, and welfare that the City seeks to prevent by
regulating signs
C In developing this Ordinance, the City Council is mindful of legal
principles relating to content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations of signs,
billboards, and postings, and the City Council declares it does not intend to
suppress or infringe upon expressive activities protected by the United States and
California Constitutions Rather, the City Council intends to enact reasonable
content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations that are narrowly tailored to
serve its substantial and legitimate interests in protecting the public health, safety,
and welfare and leave ample alternative avenues for protected expression The City
Council takes legislative notice of various court decisions including the United States
Supreme Court decisions regarding local regulation of signs, billboards, and
postings in Metromedia, Inc v City of San Diego, 453 U S 490, 101 S Ct 2992, 69
L Ed 2d 800 (1981) and Members of the City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent,
-2-
21 1I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
466 US 789, 104S Ct 2118 80L Ed 3d 772 (1984), the decisions of the United.
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gerntsen v City of Los Angeles, 994
F 2d 570 (9th Dr 1993) Clear Channel Outdoor Inc v City of Los Angeles 340
F 3d 810 (9th Cir 2003) and the state court of appeal decision in City and County
of San Francisco v Eller Outdoor Advertising, 192 Cal App 3d 643 (1987)
D The City finds and declares that it has a substantial and legitimate
interest in regulating signs in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare of
the City and its residents in order to preserve, protect, and promote the (1)
constitutionally protected free speech rights of individuals and organizations, (2)
safety of vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, (3) commercial and residential
property values (4) community aesthetics and the visual environment of the City so
as to promote commerce, investment, tourism and visitation, and (5) the overall
quality of living for persons residing or doing business in, or visiting the City Off site
signs including but not limited to billboard and large supergraphic signs, threaten 0
serious harms to Culver City s aesthetics, as well as the safe and efficient flow of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and property values Further, the very massive size
of billboards and supergraphics threaten visibility and light impairment Any new or
additional off site signs would threaten the public health, safety and welfare of the
City by negatively impacting community aesthetics and the safe and efficient flow of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic It is a fundamental land use policy of Culver City to
prohibit the construction erection or use of any off site signs, other than those which
legally exist in the City when the prohibition was first adopted in 1995, or for which a
valid permit has been issued
E Ample alternative avenues of communication exist for the
dissemination of both commercial and non-commercial messages Alternative
avenues include, but are not limited to personal communication, pamphleting, direct
mail television, radio and Internet communications With regard to the Internet, th
-3-City Council further finds and declares that (1) the United States Supreme Court has
recognized that 'From the publishers' point of view [the Internet] constitutes a vast
platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of
readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers" Reno v Amencan Ow/ Liberties Union,
521 US 844, 853, 1175 Ct 2329, 138 L Ed 2d 874 (1997) and (2) the California
Court of Appeal has found that 63% of adults in the United States were using the
Internet as of 2003, and that, "the average computer blogger has in effect, his or her
own printing press to reach the world" In re Stevens, 119 Cal App 4th 1228 1235-
1236 (2004) The City Council therefore finds as the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit did, that the Internet is an ample alternative avenue of
communication when other mediums are subject to reasonable content-neutral time,
place, or manner restrictions Anheuser Busch v Schmoke, 101 F 3d 325 (4th Cir
1996), cert denied 520 U S 1204 (1997)
F A proper balancing of individual rights to free expression and the
substantial public interest protecting the public health, safety, and welfare requires
the prompt hearing and judicial review as to any requests to erect signs that are
denied The time allowances for appeal and judicial review of denials of sign permit
applications in this Ordinance are the shortest fixed periods compatible with the
balancing of sound land use planning and the protection of First Amendment
freedoms The City Council finds that these time frames are reasonable in that the
City is granting or denying a sign permit within thirty (30) days of the filing of a
completed application for such permit After the filing of an appeal the Planning
Commission or City Council conducts a public hearing on such appeal and renders
a decision within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal These time frames are
reasonably required based on facts that include but are not limited to (1) public
hearings are required for certain land use decisions and require ten (10) days
advance notice under Sections 65091 and 65905 of the California Government
-4-
7:3
• |101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
27
28S 28
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Code (2) the City Hall for Culver City is closed to the public on various Fridays (30
publication of a notice to the public regarding a hearing requires sufficient lead time
after request by the City for publication in a newspaper, and (4) Culver City is a
small jurisdiction and has a very limited staff These time allowances are necessary
to protect the free speech and due process rights of the applicant and the public to
speak regarding the issuance or denial of a sign permit
G Judicial review of an appeal relating to a First Amendment permit or
entitlement decision is available pursuant to Section 1094 8 of the California Code
of Civil Procedure, on an expedited basis
H The regulation of signs is a matter of City-wide importance and is
neither directed towards nor targeted at any particular parcel of property, person, or
organization
SECTION 2 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 005 of the Culver City
Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced as follows
•
17 330 005 — Intent
This Chapter is a comprehensive system for the regulation of signs in the
City Sign regulation is enacted to serve the interests of community aesthetics,
vehicular and pedestrian safety, to protect and preserve property values, to improve
the visual environment of the City so as to promote commerce investment tourism
and visitation, and the overall quality of life for persons living in, doing business in,
or visiting the City The provisions of this Chapter are also intended to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare of persons driving parking biking, walking,
residing or conducting business within the City by reducing visual distractions to
motorists, by making signs and advertising displays more attractive, aesthetically
pleasing and more effective It is the further purpose of this Chapter that every use
of property within the City receives adequate identification The City intends to
-5-• 1|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
create a comprehensive balanced system of signs that is aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with the environment
The regulations of this Chapter are not intended to permit any violations of
the provisions of any other lawful ordinance, nor to prohibit the use of any sign
required by any law superior to that of this Ordinance
A Regulatory Interpretations All regulatory interpretations of this
Chapter are to be exercised in light of the City's message neutrality policy Where a
particular type of sign is proposed in a permit application, and the type is neither
expressly allowed nor prohibited nor restricted by this Chapter, or whenever a sign
does not qualify as a "structure" as defined in the Uniform Building Code, then the
Director shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application based on
the most similar sign type that is expressly regulated by this Chapter Architectural
compatibility shall be analyzed on the basis of size, location, color, construction
materials and design of the sign structure, without consideration of the message to
be displayed on a sign, other than the distinction between on-site and off-site
commercial messages
B Discretionary Approvals Whenever a sign or proposed sign is
subject to any discretionary approval process, including but not limited to variance,
conditional use permit or administrative use permit, then no consideration will be
given to sign copy or message to be displayed, other than a determination as to
whether the message will constitute off-site commercial copy This principle applies
equally at all levels of approval, from the Director to the City Council
C Non-communicative Aspects of Signs All rules and regulations
concerning the non-communicative aspects of signs, such as location, size, height,
illumination, spacing, orientation, and so forth, stand enforceable independently of
any permit or approval process
-6-
51|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.I0
SECTION 3 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 020 B of the Culver City 0
Municipal Code, Table 3-5 titled Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts Row
Heading of Directional Signs (row 4) Column Heading of Maximum Number of Signs
(column 4) The text of this cell is hereby amended to read as follows
Shall be approved by the Director based on issues of safety line of site and
site conditions to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement
SECTION 4 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 E 2 of the Culver City
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows|109| An application for deviation from the size, location, height or
number restrictions contained in Table 3-5 may be submitted to the Director and
said deviation request shall be granted when the applicant establishes the presence
of unusual needs circumstances or conditions relative to restricted visibility, the
size of the property, or the number of access points that make the deviation
necessary
Ili
SECTION 5 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 F 1 of the Culver City
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows|109| An electronic message sign shall be displayed only if the
information displayed is public information
SECTION 6 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 H 1 d is hereby amended
to read as follows
d An application for additional or larger gasoline station price
signs may be submitted to the Director and shall be granted if the applicant
establishes that such is necessary to meet the minimum requirements established
by County, State or Federal law
SECTION 7 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Event Signs
•
-7-(row 4), Column Heading of Maximum Sign Area (column 2) The text of this cell is
hereby amended to read as follows
Sign area shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the message
to be displayed on the temporary event sign
SECTION 8 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Event Signs
(row 4), Column Heading of Maximum Sign Height (column 3) The text of this cell is
hereby amended to read as follows
Sign height shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the
message to be displayed on the temporary event sign
SECTION 9 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Event Signs
(row 4), Column Heading of Maximum Number of Signs (column 4) The text of this cell
is hereby amended to read as follows
Number of signs shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
permanent signs allowed by this Chapter based on the size and lot
configuration and ensuring no access or site impairment and without
consideration of the message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
SECTION 10 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Event Signs
(row 4), Column Heading of Additional Requirements (column 6) The text of this cell is
hereby amended to read as follows
Additional, more stringent regulations may be placed on special event
signs through any discretionary land use approval or business tax certificate
approval process required for special events by this Code based on issues of size,
-8-
21
• 1|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
27
28156|109| location color, construction materials and design of the sign without consideration •|109| the message to be displayed on the special events sign|109| SECTION 11 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
4 Municipal Code Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs Row Heading of Holiday
5 Signs (row 7) Column Heading of Maximum Sign Area (column 2) The text of this cell is
6 hereby amended to read as follows
7 Sign area shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
8 permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the
9 message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
10 SECTION 12 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
11 Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Holiday
12 Signs (row 7), Column Heading of Maximum Sign Height (column 3) The text of this cell
13 is hereby amended to read as follows
14 Sign height shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for III
15 permanent signs allowed by this Chapter and without consideration of the
16 message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
17 SECTION 13 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 K of the Culver City
18 Municipal Code, Table 3-6A Standards for Temporary Signs, Row Heading of Holiday
19 Signs (row 7) Column Heading of Maximum Number of Signs (column 4) The text of
20 this cell is hereby amended to read as follows
21 Number of signs shall be in keeping with the regulations in place for
22 permanent signs allowed by this Chapter based on the size and lot
23 configuration and ensuring no access or site impairment and without
24 consideration of the message to be displayed on the temporary holiday sign
25 SECTION 14 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 025 L 2 a is hereby
26 amended to replace the word encouraged' with 'allowed'
27
28
-9-1
•|101010101010|SECTION 15 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 035 B 4 is hereby amended
to read as follows|101010 10
10|11
12
13
•
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
•
27
28
Freeway-oriented signs As used herein, are on-site signs that are
directed essentially to be visible only from a freeway and are prohibited
without a permit issued by the Director pursuant to master sign program
SECTION 16 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 035 B is hereby amended to
delete the words "or through the approval of a master sign program" from the first
sentence
SECTION 17 AMENDMENT Section 17 330 050 is hereby repealed and
replaced as follows
17 330 050 — Review Process and Appeals
A Permits shall be required for the following sign types
1 All signs meeting the definition of "structure" within the
Uniform Building Code are subject to the structural requirements of
that Code, and may be mounted, erected or displayed only when a
valid building permit has been issued,|109| Signs included in the master sign program and multiple
business sign program as provided for in this Chapter,|109| Signs requiring a conditional use permit, variance or
modification as provided under this Chapter, and|109| Temporary banners as provided under this Chapter
B Sign Related Decisions and Appeals|109| Administrative Authority It is the responsibility of the
Director to enforce all provisions of this Chapter Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Title, sign related decisions shall be governed by the procedures
outlined in this Chapter
-10-
inso|109| Sign Related Decisions Sign related decisions include
decisions on applications for sign permits, master sign programs, repair or removal
orders abatement orders amortization schedules requests for interpretations, and
all other sign related matters requiring decision by the City|109| Incomplete Applications If the Director finds that any
application for a sign permit is incomplete, the applicant shall be so notified not
more than fifteen (15) calendar days after the application is received The notice
shall detail all known points of incompleteness Such writing shall be deposited in
U S mail, postage prepaid, immediately upon determination that the application is
incomplete Within fifteen (15) business days following the receipt of an amended
application or supplemental information the Director shall again determine whether
the application is complete in accordance with the procedures set forth above
Evaluation and notification shall occur as provided above until such time as the
application is found to be complete If the Director fails to provide notice of
•
incompleteness within fifteen (15) business days, then the application shall be
deemed complete|109| Review/Standard All matters of enforcement,
interpretation, and application of this Chapter, including all sign related decisions,
shall be made initially by the Director as an administrative matter, with no public
hearing required Any effected person may appeal the Director's sign related
decisions to the Planning Commission for public hearing and decision Any decision
of the Planning Commission, except appeals of an incompleteness determination,
may be appealed to the City Council for public hearing The City Council s decision
is final as to the City but is subject to judicial review In reaching a decision, neither
the Director Planning Commission nor City Council shall be bound by the formal
rules of evidence
•
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28• |101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 27
28|109| Perfecting Appeal, Time Limit for Appeal An appeal
is effective when delivered to the City Clerk within the required time on a form
prescribed by the Director, accompanied by any applicable appeal fee (in an amount
set by Resolution of the City Council), signed by the appellant, identifying the matter
or decision appealed from, and stating the grounds of appeal All notices of appeal
on all sign related decisions must be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10)
calendar days of when the appeal right arises|109| When Appeal Right Arises, Finality The right to
appeal a sign related decision arises at the earliest of when written notice of the
Director's administrative decision is deposited in the U S mail, postage prepaid,
when an appellate decision is made by vote of the appellate body in a duly noticed
hearing on the matter, when written notice of the decision is delivered or deposited
in the U S mail, postage prepaid to the applicant or appellant, or at the expiration of
the time in which the Director or appellate body is required to make a decision
(unless timeliness of decision is waived by the applicant or appellant) Any sign
related decision which is not properly appealed within the required time is final At
each level of review, written notice of any sign related decision shall be sent via
United States mail to the applicant within five (5) calendar days of the decision|109| Timeliness of Decision, Waiver of Time At each level
of review, all sign related decisions (which includes any hearing when procedurally
required) shall be made within thirty (30) calendar days of when the permit
application is complete, the request for interpretation has been received, or when
the appeal has been timely and properly filed The timeliness requirements may be
waived by the applicant or appellant The failure of the Director, Planning
Commission or City Council to render any decision within the time frames
established in any part of this section shall be deemed to constitute a denial and the
applicant or appellant shall have the immediate right to appeal
-12-
311|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27|109| Maintenance of Status Quo While a sign related 410
decision is pending, the status quo shall be maintained until the review or appeal
has run its full course, unless the subject sign is in such physical condition that it
presents a serious or immediate threat to the public health and safety, in which case
it may be abated as a public nuisance No building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical
or grading permit shall be issued for a proposed sign until the appeal process has
run its full course|10 9| Appeals The filing of an appeal within the time limit
shall stay the effective date of the decision appealed from When any related
decision is timely appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council, the
appellate body shall hold a hearing on the matter and decide the matter within the
required time period unless the applicant or appellant waives time The decision
shall be in writing and shall state facts from the record which support any findings
made
•
10 Judicial Review Following exhaustion of all available
appellate procedures within the City, any applicant or appellant may seek judicial
review of the City's final decision pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
1094 8 This provision does not limit an applicant's or appellant s ability to seek
judicial review by other means
11 Conduct Constituting a Public Nuisance The
construction maintenance, or placement of any sign within the City in violation of
any of the terms of this Chapter is hereby found and declared to be a public
nuisance and the City Attorney or the District Attorney may, in addition or in lieu of
prosecuting a criminal action hereunder, commence an action or proceeding for the
abatement, removal and enjoyment thereof, in the manner provided by law, and
shall take other steps and shall apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to
grant such relief as will abate or remove such illegal sign and to restrain and enjoins
9.8
-13-any person(s) from conducting, operating or maintaining a sign contrary to the
provisions of this Article
C Hardship Exemptions|109| Where the owner/user of a proposed or existing sign
believes that compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, coupled
with unusual geographic or building design and configuration
conditions pertaining to the site, or contractual conditions limiting the
use thereof, would create an undue economic hardship on the use of
property, (s)he may apply to the Director for a hardship exemption
The Director's decision in such cases shall be based on one or more
of the following criteria
a The site is unusual in size, shape or topography
b Improvements on the site or on adjoining public or
private properties cause a visual obstruction
c The site is improved with a multiple business
development and is encumbered by an existing contractual
obligation that precludes the modification of one or more other
existing signs for other businesses at the same time as the
installation of a new sign or a modification to an existing sign on
the same sign structure is proposed for a business on the
premises|109| Approval of a hardship exemption may be subject to
time, place and manner conditions based on issues of size, location
color, construction materials and design of the sign without
consideration or restriction as to the message to be displayed on the
sign
-14-
333 The applicant has the burden of proof to establish that 0
hardship exists based on the criteria found above
D Comprehensive Sign Programs|109| Multiple Business Sign Programs
a The purpose of a multiple business sign program
is to achieve design compatibility amongst all signs displayed
on a single ownership parcel that is occupied by two or more
separate businesses
b The submittal of a multiple business sign program
shall be required for each multi-tenant development that is
occupied by two or more separate businesses at the time the
first new permanent sign or first modification to an existing
permanent sign on the premises is proposed, except that a
multiple business sign program is not required for a project wit.
an approved master sign program
c A multiple business sign program, or the
equivalent, approved prior to the effective date of this Chapter
or any amendment to this Chapter, shall be revised, if
necessary, to conform to this Chapter at the time the first new
permanent sign or modification to an existing permanent sign is
proposed on the premises
d A multiple business sign program shall be
submitted by or with the consent of the property owner or
master lessor
e A multiple business sign program shall consist of
plans and text describing the details of all signs, existing-to-
-15-remain, modified, and new signs that are and that may be
displayed on the premises
f Only the types of signs allowed by the regulations
of this Chapter shall be approved under a multiple business
sign program
g The Director shall approve, conditionally approve
or disapprove any application for a multiple business sign
program|109| Master Sign Programs
a The purpose of a master sign program is to
provide a mechanism by which the sign regulations established
in this Chapter can be modified to ensure that signs for a
uniquely planned or designed development or area are most
appropriate for that particular development or area
b A master sign program may be
i Required by the Director for any
development that requires a Site Plan Review in
compliance with Chapter 17 540, or a similar
discretionary review, or
ii Requested by the owner or master lessor of 1
a development, or
iii Initiated by the City or the Culver City
Redevelopment Agency for a particular area in
furtherance of a specific plan, revitalization program,
overlay zone, or other area wide planning tool
-16-
35le
c A master sign program may include provisions 0
that are more and/or less restrictive than the regulations
established in this Chapter as related to issues of size location,
color construction materials and design of the sign but without
consideration as to the message to be displayed on the sign
based on the particular unique features of the development
d Each master sign program applicant shall show
why the modifications requested are warranted and how the
total sign proposal for the development meets on balance, the
general purpose and intent of this Chapter
e A master sign program, or the equivalent, that was
approved by the City or Redevelopment Agency prior to the
effective date of this Chapter or any amendment to this
Chapter, shall be deemed to conform to this Chapter
•
f The Director shall approve, conditionally approve,
or disapprove any application for a master sign program
g A new master sign program approval shall be
obtained for substantial revisions to the original approval, as
determined by the Director
SECTION 18 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS Adoption of this Ordinance is
not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code
§ 21000 et seq The effect of the Ordinance will be to preserve the status quo with respect
to the time, place and manner in which signs may be erected in the City because the
Ordinance neither allows any sign that is currently prohibited by the Culver City Municipal
Code, nor prohibits any sign that is currently allowed by the Culver City Municipal Code
The City Council therefore finds that the Ordinance does not qualify as a "project" subject •
-17-
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
287|1010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• 27
28|101010101010|1 to CEQA under Public Resources Code § 21065 because it will not result in either a direct
or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment Independent of
this determination, the City Council also finds that the Ordinance qualifies for exemption
from CEQA under 14 Cal Code Regs § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the
environment In accordance with Public Resources Code § 21152(b), the City will issue a
Notice of Exemption after the Ordinance is adopted The Notice of Exemption will be filed
with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles where it will be available for public
inspection pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21152(b)-(c)
SECTION 19 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and
adopted this Ordinance, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that
one or more provisions may be declared invalid Further, in the event of the invalidation of
any provision of this Ordinance, it is the intention of the City Council that any person
seeking to erect a sign in the City should be nonetheless subject to all remaining
requirements of the Ordinance or the City's Municipal Code, including, but not limited to,
location, design, and building requirements and the revocation, violation, and penalty
provisions, which the City Council has already or would have adopted independent of any
other provision in this Ordinance
SECTION 20 PUBLICATION Pursuant to Section 514 of the City Charter
this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption Pursuant to
Sections 512 and 517 of the City Charter, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after
the adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published in the Culver City News and shall post this Ordinance or a summary thereof in at
least three places within the City
-18-
31
CHRISTOPHER ARMENIA, City Clerk CAROL A SCHWAB, City Attorney
-19-
0 1 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005|10101010|ALBERT M VERA, Mayor|1010|City of Culver City California|101010|ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM|1010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
346ATTOC+1146141- 3
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
Chapter 17 330- SIGNS
Sections
17 330 005 Purpose
17 330 010 Applicability
17 330 015 Definitions
17 330 020 Sign Standards by Zorung District
17 330 025 Standards for Specific Types of Signs
17 330 030 General Requirements for all Signs
17 330 035 Prohibited and Restricted Signs
17 330 040 Signs m Public Right of Way
17 330 045 Non conforming Signs
17 330 050 Sign Permit Requirements
17 330 005 - Purpose
The purposes of this Chapter are to
A To create a framework for a comprehensive, balanced system of signs that is aesthetically
pleasing, compatible with its environment, and an enhancement to busmess opportunities in
Culver City
B To allow the display of signs that are appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertam, are
legible under the circumstances they are seen and are expressive of the identification and
advertising needs of business proprietors and the real estate needs of property owners
C To avoid traffic safety hazards to motorists bicyclists and pedestrians caused by visual
distractions and obstructions
17 330 010 - Applicability
A Signs Regulated The sign standards provided m this chapter shall apply to all signs m all
zoning districts Only signs authorized by this chapter shall be allowed
Applicability to Sign Content The provisions of this Chapter do not regulate the message
content of signs (sign copy), regardless of whether the message content is commercial or non
commercial
C Definitions Definitions of specific types of signs and other terms used in this chapter are
contained in Section 17 330 015
17 330 015 - Definitions
Architectural Feature A soffit column wing wall, canopy roof eave balcony and any other
similar element that does not create an interior floor space
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 45CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
Awning A permanent or temporary structure attached to and wholly supported by a wall of a
building and installed over and partially in front of doors, windows or other openings in a
building and consisting of a frame and a top of canvas or other similar material covering the
entire space enclosed between the frame
Background Canopy Area The outer surface area of a canopy that is reasonably visible to
public view
Background Wall Area The largest rectangular opaque portion of each wall segment within
which wall signs are displayed
Backlit Characters That method of sign illumination achieved by concealing the light source
between the three dimensional opaque letters numbers or other characters of a sign and the solid
surface of a building or structure on which the sign characters are mounted that result in the night
time perception of a halo around the silhouette of each sign character
Business Frontage The portion of a building occupied by a single business tenant and fronts
on a public street faces a courtyard, pedestrian corridor or walkway parking lot or alley
Cabinet Sign A sign that contains all the text and/or logo symbols within a single enclosed
cabinet and which may or may not be illummated
Canopy Depth The maximum perpendicular distance that a canopy projects away from the
building wall to which it is attached
Canopy, Nonstructural See Awning
Canopy Sign A sign displayed on an awning or a canopy
Canopy, Structural An architectural feature that
A Projects from and is totally supported by the exterior wall of a building
B Provides protection from the elements to pedestrians below or to occupants within the
building
C Is usually positioned above a window or a door
D Is permanent in that it is not retractable and cannot be removed from the building without
altering the building structure
Canopy Width The maximum parallel distance that a canopy extends across the building wall
to which it is attached
Changeable Copy Sign A sign with a message comprised of letters numbers or other
characters that are manually or mechanically changed to display different messages
Construction Sign A temporary sign that identifies the names addresses and telephone
numbers of parties directly involved in the business occupancy construction design or
financing of pending or in progress physical improvements to the premises
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3 46CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
Corporate Flag Sign A wind activated flag with a message that is an inherently distinctive
logo or trademark for a business
Decorative Banner and Flag A festive permanent graphic display that is made of durable
cloth plastic or similar non-rigid material and that either displays no message or displays only a
predominately pictorial message that does not directly identify or advertise a business on the
premises
Directional Sign A sign that identifies to motorists or pedestrians an entry or exit point to or
from an adjacent public right-of way or to or from various pomts of passage on or within private
property
Electronic Message Sign A sign with a message comprised of letters, numbers, or other
characters that are electronically changed to display different messages
Event Sign A sign that identifies, advertises or promotes a special or temporary event
False Mansard A sloped wall segment that is above or projects down and away from a vertical
wall of a building and that is not a building roof as defined by the Uniform Building Code
Freestanding Sign A sign that is displayed on and is totally supported by one or more support
elements that are on the ground with no part of the sign attached to a building or similar
structure
Holiday Sign A temporary sign or display that is placed m remembrance or celebration of any
recognized religious local State or Federal holiday
Institutional Flag A wind activated flag with a message that is an inherently distinctive symbol
for a particular government jurisdiction
New Business Sign A temporary sign that displays only the name of a new business or a
change m the name of an existmg business
Nonconforming Sign Any sign that does not comply with this Chapter
Off-site Sign Any sign with a message that does not relate directly to an active use of the
premises on which it is displayed
On-site Sign Any sign with a message that relates directly to an active use of the premises on
which it is displayed
Parapet Wall Sign A wall sign that is located below the top of the parapet line of a building
and above the top of the window lme of the highest story of the building, and including a sign on
a false mansard
Public Information A message of potential interest to the general public as a whole that
includes no business identification, advertising, or promotional information (e g, time and
temperature information)
Public Information Sign A sign that displays only a public information message
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 47
Il lCLTLVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
Real Estate Sign A sign that indicates the availability of land or buildings for sale lease rent
or other permanent or temporary disposition
Sign Any emblem icon insignia logo replica symbol or trademark that displays a message in
lettered written numbered pictorial or any other visually perceptible form and including the
support elements distinct background area and decorative embellishments thereof Does not
include murals paintings or other works of art that are not intended to advertise or identify any
business or product
Sign Copy All portions of a sign that display a message
Sign Face Area The area of a sign that includes copy and distinct background surfaces
Special Event A duly licensed and approved activity of limited duration that is not directly
related to an established business on the premises where the event is held such as a carnival or
Christmas tree sales on a vacant or unused lot or a fundraising activity of a nonprofit
organization held on the improved premises of an established business
Support Element The structural portion of a sign that secures it to the ground, a building or to
another structure
Temporary Banner Sign A sign that is made of durable cloth, plastic or similar non rigid
material that displays business identification advertising or promotional message and that is
displayed only for a short period of time as regulated in this Chapter
Temporary Event A duly licensed and approved activity of limited duration that is directly
related to an established business on the premises where the event is held, such as the outdoor
sales of Christmas trees by a supermarket or a weekend festive promotion for a business that is
staged outdoors and that provides complimentary food music entertainment or similar
attractions to entice public attendance or participation
Theater Marquee Sign A sign attached to or made an integral part of the structural canopy of a
theater
Vertical Clearance The distance from the bottom of a sign but not including the support
elements of a freestanding sign, to the average finished grade below or to the grade of the
nearest point of an adjoining public right of way with a higher elevation if within 5 feet thereof
Wall Sign A sign that is displayed on, or is attached to an exterior wall of a building or
structure
Window Sign A permanent or temporary sign that is displayed on the surface of any glass or
glazed material or that is displayed inside and close enough to a window to be reasonably visible
from outside the window
17 330 020 — Sign Standards by Zoning District
•
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
Lit
3 48CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
•
Only the signs and sign area authorized by this Section shall be allowed unless otherwise expressly
provided in section 17 330 025 (Standards for Specific Types of Signs)
A Residential Zones
1 Permanent identification sign One permanent identification wall or freestanding sign
not to exceed 32 square feet m area for multi family residential developments of four or
more units displaying only the name and address of the integrated multiple residential
development shall be allowed for each 400 feet of lineal street frontage on which the
development has access provided that
a Sign proximity The minimum distance between each identification sign shall be 200
feet
b Maximum height The maximum height of any freestandmg sign shall not exceed 5
feet
• Minimum setback The minimum setback for any freestanding sign shall be 10 feet
from every adjoining lot line and 5 feet from every street facing lot line
d Attachment Any wall sign shall be attached to and parallel with the front wall of the
building and the street
• Accessories prohibited No other object placed to attract additional attention shall be
•
attached to any identification sign or placed anywhere on the lot
f Materials The style, color matenals, texture, and exterior fmish of any identification
sign shall be closely compatible with the exterior building materials used on-site
2 Permanent information sign One unlighted permanent information freestanding sign in
addition to each permanent identification sign, not to exceed 32 square feet m the area for
multi-family residential developments of four or more units identifying the residential
development and providing sales, rental, or lease mformation and meeting the following
standards
a Sign proximity The sign shall be placed within a 100 foot radius of the
corresponding permanent identification sign(s)
b Maximum height The maximum height of the sign including its support shall not
exceed 5 feet
c Minimum setback The minimum setback for any freestanding sign shall be ten feet
from every adjoining lot line and 5 feet from every street facing lot line
d Accessories prohibited No other object placed to attract additional attention shall be
attached to any information sign or placed anywhere on the lot
• Materials The style, color materials texture and exterior finish of any information
freestanding sign and its support elements shall be closely compatible with the exterior
building materials used on site|109| Identification signs for nonresidential uses in residential zones
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 49CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
a Permanent identification signs One unlighted permanent identification sign per lot
not to exceed 8 square feet in area in the R1, R2 and R3 Zones and not to exceed 32
square feet in area in the RLD RMD and RED Zones attached to and parallel with
the front wall of the building and the street displaying only the name of the facility
shall be allowed in every residential zone subject to the following standards
Materials The style color materials texture and exterior finish of any
identification sign shall be closely compatible with the exterior building
materials used on site
ii Accessories prohibited No other object placed to attract additional attention
shall be attached to the sign or placed anywhere on the lot
b Freestanding signs If more than one building or structure exists on the lot or if the
lot exceeds 200 feet of lineal street frontage one freestanding sign in place of the wall
sign allowed under Section 17 330 020 A 3 a above shall be allowed in every
residential zone, subject to the following standards
Maximum height The maximum height of the freestandmg sign including its
support shall not exceed 5 feet When walls or hedges which conform to
applicable Culver City Municipal Code regulations are on a front lot line, the
freestanding sign shall be placed so that its bottom edge is no more than 12
inches above the wall or hedge
ii Minimum setback The minimum setback for any freestanding sign shall be
10 feet from every adjoining lot line and 5 feet from every street facing lot
line
iii Materials The style color materials, texture and exterior finish of any
identification freestanding sign and its support elements shall be closely
compatible with the exterior building materials used on site
iv Accessories prohibited No other object placed to attract additional attention
shall be attached to the sign or placed anywhere on the lot
B Nonresidential Zones Table 3 5 identifies the types of signs allowed in non-residential
zoning districts
TABLE 3-5
SIGN STANDARDS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Sign Type
(1)
Maximum Sign
Area
Maximum Sign
Height
Maximum
Number of Signs
Location
Additional
Requirements
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
Lk
3 50CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs
17 330
•
Freestanding
Signs
50 sf of sign area per
face 100 sf
max for all maximum
freestanding sign
faces
20 ft maximum for
first freestanding
sign allowed 6 ft
maximum for all
additional
freestandmg signs
allowed
1 per site provided
that the site has a
minimum of 100 ft
of frontage on one
street 1 additional
freestanding sign
allowed for each
additional 200 sf of
street frontage for a
site up to a
maximum of 5
freestanding signs
Setback 2 ft from street
facing property lines
and 25 ft from mtenor
property lines
Setback at least 50ft
from other freestanding
signs along the same
frontage
Set at least 75 ft from
the boundary of any
residentially zoned
property
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Wall Signs
25 sf or
1 1/2 sf of sign area
per linear foot of
business frontage up
to a maximum of 200
sf per business
frontage Wall sign
area shall not exceed
40% of the
background wall area
on which the sign is
placed whichever is
more
For background
wall area more
than 4 ft in height
1 ft below edge of
roof
For background
wall area up to 4 ft
in height at least 6
inches below edge
of roof
Limited by area
and location not by
number
Affixed to a wall Shall
not cover doors
wmdows or
architectural features
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Parapet
Wall Signs
Buildings up to 3
stones Sign area is
included in the total
allowed for wall
signs
Buildings 4 stones or
more Not limited in
sign area
For background
wall area more
than 4 ft in height
1 ft below edge of
roof
For background
wall area up to 4 ft
in height at least 6
inches below edge
of roof
2 stones or less
limited by area and
location not by
number
3 stones or more
maximum of 2
parapet signs per
building on
opposite not
adjoining parapets
Shall not cover any
architectural features
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Table continues on next page
Notes
(1) See Figure 3 10 for illustration of sign types
TABLE 3 5
SIGN STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Sign Type
(1)
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Sign
Height
Maximum
Number of Signs
Location
Additional
Requirements
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 51CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs
17 330
Canopy
Signs
Front of canopy 1 Y2 if
of sign area per linear
foot of canopy width
Sides of canopy 2 sf
of sign area per linear
foot of canopy depth
Sign area is not to
exceed 40% of
background canopy
area on which the sign
is displayed Canopy
sign area shall reduce
the allowable wall sign
area from which the
canopy projects
When mounted above
or below a structural
canopy 1 1/2 sf of sign
area per lineal ft of
canopy width
Limited by
location not by
height when on the
face of the canopy
Limited by area
an d location not
by number
May be located on any
exterior surface of a
canopy that is located
below the third floor
line of a building
No part of a canopy
sign displayed on the
vertical or sloped
surface of a canopy
shall project beyond the
edges of the canopy
surface on which it is
displayed
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Window
Signs
Shall not occupy more
than 25% of the total
window area
Limited by
location not by
height
Limited by area,
not by number
May be placed on first
and second floor
windows only
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Directional
Signs
4 sf per sign face
The area of a
directional sign shall
be in addition to other
allowable sign area for
a business or site
except if displayed as
a window sign it shall
be subject to the sign
face area limits for
window signs
The height of a
directional sign
shall be subject to
the height limits for
the physical type of
sign it is (e g wall
sign) except that
the height of
freestanding
directional signs is
limited to 48
inches
As approved by
the Director
Placement of a
directional sign shall be
subject to the location
limits for the physical
type of sign it is (e g
wall sign)
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Table continues on next page
Notes
(1) See Figure 3 10 for illustration of sign types
TABLE 3 5
SIGN STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Sign Type
(1)
Maximum Sign Area M
Maximum Sign
Height
Maximum
Number of Signs
Location
Additional
Requirements
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
it',
3 52CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
•
Signs
17 330
Public
Information
Signs
The area of a public
information sign shall
be subject to the size
limits for the physical
type of sign it is (e g
wall sign) provided
that the Director may
approve a public
information sign in
addition to other
allowable sign area for
a business or site if
the sign is determined
to be unique in terms
of providing an
important public
service
The height of a
public information
sign shall be
subject to the
height limits for the
hysic pal type of
sign it is (e g wall
sign)
Limited by type
and size not by
number
The placement of a
public information sign
shall be subject to the
location limits for the
physical type of sign it
is (e g wall sign)
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Corporate
Flag Signs
4 ft by 6 ft, 24 sf
Maximum height of
a corporate flag
sign is determined
by the allowable
height of its mast or
staff support
element structure
which is regulated
by the height limits
prescribed for
buildings and
structures in each
zomng district
1 per business
The placement of a
corporate flag sign
shall be subject to the
location limits for the
physical type of sign it
is (e g freestandmg
sign)
See Section
17 330 025 for
Standards for
Specific Types
of Signs
Notes
(1) See Figure 3 10 for illustration of sign types
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 53
4-1
,CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs
17 330
•
Figure 3 10
Types of Signs
17 330 025 — Standards for Specific Types of Signs
A Canopy Signs|109| A canopy sign may be attached above or below a structural canopy subject to the
following
a When above or below the canopy it shall not exceed 16 inches in height 12 inches in
thickness nor two thirds the length of the canopy face parallel to the sign
b When above the canopy it shall have no distinct background area
When below the canopy it shall have a minimum 8 foot vertical clearance to finished
grade below|109| For theater marquee signs see Subsection 17 330 025 L 2
B Changeable Copy Signs A changeable copy sign shall only be allowed for the following uses,
and shall be subject to the limits for the physical type of sign it is (e g wall sign)|109| Vehicle fueling station price signs|109| Government buildings|109| Places of worship
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3 54
•
•
ItCULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330|109| Real estate offices|109| Restaurant menu signs along drive through lanes or at outdoor walk up service areas only|109| Schools|109| Theater marquee signs
C Corporate Flag Signs|109| When displayed in a group with one or more institutional flags
a All rules of etiquette prescribed by law or convention for the institutional flag display
including but not limited to the "over and under" and "left and right" relative positions
of the flags, shall apply to the corporate flag sign display
b In no event shall the size or height of the corporate flag sign exceed the size or height
of any institutional flag displayed in the group
D Decorative Banners and Flags Decorative banners and flags shall only be allowed if approved
by a master sign program under Subsection 17 330 050 C 2
E Directional Signs|109| A directional sign shall contain no brand, trade or business identification or advertising
information|109| Deviations from the directional signs standards contained in Table 3 5 may be approved
by the Director where unusual needs circumstances, or conditions exist relative to re
stricted visibility, the size of the property or the number of access points
• Electronic Message Signs|109| An electronic message sign shall be displayed only if the information displayed is predomi
nately public information as determined by the Director|109| An electronic message sign shall be subject to the limitations for the physical type of sign it
is (e g , wall sign)
G Freestanding Signs
1 Landscaping A freestanding sign shall be placed withm a landscaped area of not less than
20 square feet The Director can approve a reduction of the size of or eliminating the
planter, if necessary, to avoid creating or increasing a parkmg nonconformity or safety
hazard
2 Canister A single sided or two sided freestanding sign shall not exceed 24 inches in
thickness The side, bottom and top panel edges of the sign shall be enclosed with opaque
materials that match or are compatible in appearance with the sign
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3-55CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330|109| Multiple sign canisters Multiple sign canisters on a single freestanding sign shall be
compatibly configured as approved by the Director
4 Sign mounting Freestanding signs shall be mounted on one or more supports or have a
solid monument type base Posts shall not have a diameter greater than 12 inches
Supports shall be well designed compatible and in scale with the design of the sign All
support elements shall have continuous finished appearance
5 Multiple business sign copy The sign copy on a freestanding sign serving a multiple
business building or a shopping center
a May include the names of individual businesses located within the building or center
as well as the building or center name and street address
b Shall have sign copy character styles and sign copy and background colors that are
compatible with one another
c Shall contain no more than four vertically stacked rows of individual business signs
Each row can have multiple lines of copy
6 Sign projection A freestanding sign may project over a paved public sidewalk up to 4
feet or one-half the width of the sidewalk whichever is less provided that
a The bottom of the projecting portion of the sign has a minimum of 12 feet of vertical
clearance over the sidewalk
b The sign has only finished sign copy faces and finished panel edges projecting over
the sidewalk
c The minimum required area of the landscaped planter beneath or m close proximity to
the sign is placed fully behind the property line, unless a public right of way
landscaping encroachment permit is granted
d No part of the sign is closer than 18 inches to the street curb face
H Gasoline Station Signs In addition to other signs allowed by this Chapter gasoline stations or
businesses that sell motor vehicle fuel to the public shall be allowed the following signs|109| Fuel price signs
a One double sided fuel price sign not exceeding 20 square feet per face shall be
allowed per site
b The fuel price sign shall be incorporated into the permanent freestanding sign for the
business if one is provided however the area of the fuel price sign shall not be
counted towards the maximum allowable sign area for the freestanding sign
c No information other than as required or allowed by local, State or Federal law shall
be displayed on a fuel price sign
•
4)
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
50
3 56CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
d Additional or larger fuel price signs may be approved if the applicant can show to the
Director s satisfaction that this would be necessary to meet the minimum requirements
established by County, State or Federal law
2 Service Island signs May be displayed directly on the vertical face of a service island
canopy and under the canopy (e g on support columns), provided that the total of all such
temporary and permanent signs displayed shall not exceed 30 square feet for each row of
pumps
Public Information Signs|109| A public information sign shall contain no brand trade identification promotional,
advertising or operational information directly related to a business
2 A public information sign required by any governmental agency shall be exempt from
these restrictions
Street Address Signs Any street address sign with letters or number up to 6 inches m height,
or larger if required by the Fire Chief shall not subject to the limits for the physical type of sign
it is (e g wall sign)
K. Temporary Signs Temporary signs (includmg real estate signs) are allowed only in
compliance with the standards in Table 3-6A and 3-6B For permit requirements see Section
17 330 050 (Sign Permit Requirements)
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 57CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs
17 330
•
TABLE 3 6A
STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS
Sign Type
Maximum
Sign Area
Maximum
Sign Height
Maximum
Number of
Signs
Time Limit Additional Requirements
New Business
Signs
1 sf for each
linear foot of
business
frontage up to
100 sf per
business
frontage
Below edge of
roof
I per business
frontage
90 days or until a
permanent sign is
installed whichever
is less
A new business sign
composed of durable non
rigid material may be
installed over and covenng
the sign of the prior
busmess it is to replace
Futuie
Occupancy
Signs
25 sf per sign
Below edge of
roof If
freestanding 6
ft maximum
height
1 per business
frontage
Shall be removed
upon first occupancy
of the site
Shall contain only the
name(s) of future
occupant(s) of the site
Event Signs
As appropriate
for the event
that is being
held as
determined by
the Director
As appropriate
for the event
that is being
held as
determined by
the Director
As appropriate
for the event
that is being
held as
determined by
the Director
Event signs may be
displayed only on
the days the event is
held for a
reasonable
promotional period
in advance of the
event and for a
reasonable take
down penod after the
event as determined
by the Director
Event signs may include
balloons pennants and
similar festive decorations
provided that
They are displayed no more
than 30 ft above grade
They are not made of
metallic or mylar material
Safe and proper clearance
from any overhead wire or
other nearby potentially
ha7ardous obstruction or
feature is maintained
Temporary
Banner Signs
3 ft by 6 ft
18 sf in area
Below edge of
roof
Maximum of 1
near each
public entrance
of a business
Maximum of 30
consecutive days not
more than 4 times
per calendar year
Shall be securely fastened
against a wall or structural
canopy
Construction
Signs
24 sf
Below edge of
roof If
freestanding
6 ft maximum
height
1 per street
frontage
Removed within 7
days of issuance by
the City of the final
Certificate of
Occu for Occupancy the
building or site
Shall contain only the
names addresses and
telephone numbers of
parties directly involved in
th e business occupancy
construction design or
financing of the pending or
in progress improvements to
the premises
Holiday
Signs
As Determined
reasonable by
the Director
As Determined
reasonable by
the Director
As Determined
reasonable by
the Director
Limited to display
between 45 days
prior to and 15 days
after the holiday to
which they pertain
Display no business
product or advertising
name symbol or logo
information
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005—PC Approved Final Draft
.51
3 58CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs
17 330
•
TABLE 3 6B
STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE SIGNS
Sign Type
Max
Sign
Area
Maximum Sign
Height
Max
Number of
Signs
Location Time Limit Additional Requirements
Non
Residential
Real Estate
Signs
24 sf
Below edge of
roof If
freestanding 6 ft
maximum height
1 per
business
frontage
Must be placed
only on private
property
Shall be
removed withm
7 days following
the sale lease or
disposition of
the real
property
The sign shall be
constructed of durable ngid
matenals suitable to their
location and purpose Only
mtenor window signs may
be made of non rigid
material The sign shall be
non illuminated
Residential
Temporar
y for sale,
rent or
lease signs
18
inches
by 24
inches m
size
Below edge of
roof If
freestanding no
more than 4 ft m
height If a wall or
hedge is located on
a front property
line the sign may
be placed on the
wall or hedge and
have a maximum
height of no more
than 3 ft above the
wall or hedge
1 per lot
Within the
front yard
setback, not
less than 5 ft
from any street
facing lot line
or less than 10
ft from an
interior lot
line or
attached to the
front of the
building
Shall be
removed within
7 days following
the sale lease or
disposition of
the real
property
The sign shall be non
illuminated The sign may
have two sign faces
No flag arrow pennant
streamer banner or any
other similar object shall be
attached to the real estate
sign or placed anywhere on
the lot, provided that two
information signs not
exceeding 5 inches by 16
inches each may be
attached to the bottom of
the real estate sign
Residential
On site
open house
signs
4 sf per
face
Below edge of
roof If
freestanding no
more than 4 ft m
height If a wall or
hedge is located on
a front property
line the sign may
be placed on the
wall or hedge and
have a maximum
height of no more
than 3 ft above the
wall or hedge
1 per lot
Within the
front yard
setback or
attached to the
front of the
building
The open house
sign and flag
shall be
displayed only
during the
period of time
the open house
s actually i in
progress
One flag allowed to be
attached to the sign
Residential
Public
parkway
open house
signs
4 sf per
face
4 ft above parkway
grade
2 signs per
comer 4
signs
maximum
per
intersection
No sign shall
obstruct the
safe and
convenient use
by the public
of adjoining
sidewalk,
curbside
parking or
roadway areas
No sign shall
be attached to
any tree pole
bench or any
other parkway
feature
Displayed only
on Sundays
from 9 00 am to
6 00 p m
The sign may have 2 sign
faces The message content
shall only relate to an
activity actually in progress
during the allowable display
period Constructed of solid
masomte metal or similar
ngid material that is no
more than one fourth inch
thick, and is securely
fastened to a metal or
wooden stake or other
freestanding support Flags
pennants and other wind
activated devices are
prohibited
•
53
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 59
kCULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs
17 330
Theater Signs
1 Above roof identification signs Vertical identification signs that consist of individual
characters displayed on sculpted visually prominent architectural features that rise
vertically from and above theater buildings shall be encouraged by the City through the
master sign program process in Subsection 17 330 050 C 2
2 Marquee signs
a Identification signs that consist of script characters displayed on the top of a marquee
(structural canopy) shall be encouraged by the City
b Changeable copy signs that display current or coming programs on the entire vertical
surface of a theater marquee shall be allowed
3 Product display cabinets When encased within glass faced cabinets built into first floor
street facing exterior building walls current or coming program information shall not be
considered signs regulated by this Chapter
M Wall Signs
1 General
a A wall sign shall not exceed 12 inches in thickness when displayed as a single face
sign parallel with the wall or as a double face sign perpendicular to the wall
b A wall sign shall not project over a common private property line without the written
consent of the adjoining property owner
2 Temporary wall signs The aggregate of all temporary signs allowed under Table 3 6 a
and b that are simultaneously displayed as wall signs shall not exceed 50 percent of the
maximum permanent wall sign area allowed on the wall on which the temporary signs are
displayed|109| Multiple business wall signs In addition to the location regulations in Table 3 5 the
following regulations apply to wall signs on a building with two or more businesses
a Placement A wall sign shall be placed on the portions of exterior building walls that
correspond with the interior location of the business to which the sign pertains,
provided that where this provision would not result in a reasonably visible sign from
the adjacent public right of way the Director shall approve alternate placement of the
sign
b Horizontal separation Wall signs on the same wall segment for horizontally
adjacent (side by side) businesses shall have a minimum 4 foot horizontal separation
Vertical separation Wall signs on the same wall segment for vertically adjacent
businesses (a business located above another business) within the same building shall
have a minimum two foot vertical separation
•
•
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
sik
3 60•
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17330
d Separation exceptions The Director may approve deviations from the above
separation requirements m cases where unusual building design or configuration
conditions would not result in a reasonably visible sign opportunity
4 Projecting wall signs The following standards apply to projecting wall signs
a The maximum distance between the wall and the outer edge of the sign shall be 4 feet
or if a paved public sidewalk is below, 50 percent of the width of the sidewalk
whichever is less
b The maximum height of the sign shall be 20 feet above grade
The minimum vertical clearance from the bottom of the sign to finished grade below
shall be 8 feet
d Projecting wall signs shall be included in the maximum sign face area allowed in
Table 3 5
5 False mansard signs
a A wall sign may be displayed on a false mansard only if the vertical distance between
the bottom of the false mansard and the top of the window line below is less than 18
inches
b Any gap between the sides or bottom of the sign and the mansard shall be
architecturally enclosed so that the sign appears to be an integral part of the false
mansard structure
Window Signs
1 In determining wuidow area perimeter window frames, mullions and building façade
divisions shall be used to measure the outside window dimensions, rather than ulterior,
ornamental, nondescript frames and dividers
2 When a sign of 2 square feet or more in area and with characters more than 2 inches high is
placed inside of a building within 30 inches of and facing a transparent window, the sign
shall be considered a window sign|1010| Glass doors shall be considered as windows and a glass door sign shall be considered a
window sign
4 No sign on the outside of a window shall extend onto or over the perimeter window frames,
mullions or building facade divisions of the window on which it is displayed
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3 61
ss
vs,Figure 3-11
Sign Height Measurement
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
•
17 330 030 — General Requirements for All Signs
A Sign Area Measurement The measurement of sign area for the purpose of determining
compliance with this Chapter is as follows|109| For a three dimensional canister sign the two dimensional area within the outer edges of
the sign canister
2 For a sign with two dimensional (e g painted) or three dimensional (e g raised)
characters and with a background that is indistinguishable in appearance from the entire
two-dimensional surface of the building or structure on which the sign is displayed the
aggregate surface area of all of the sign characters
3 For a sign with two dimensional or three dimensional characters and with a background
that is distinguishable in appearance from the two dimensional surface of the building or
structure on which the sign is displayed the area within the edges of the distinguishable
background area plus the aggregate surface area of any sign characters that fall outside of
the distinguishable background area
4 For two or more signs on the same two dimensional surface or on the same wall segment
the aggregate area of each sign|109| For cylindrical spherical and similar curved surface signs the area equal to one half the
total surface area|109| Supporting framework or bracing that is clearly incidental to the display itself shall not be
computed as sign area
Sign Height Measurement Sign height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the
lowest point of the base of the sign structure to the highest point of the sign The lowest point
of the sign structure shall not include fill planters or other material artificially placed to allow
increased sign height See Figure 3 11, below
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3 62CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
Sign Location Requirements All signs identifying an occupant business or use shall be
located on the same site as the occupant, business or use
Aesthetic Design Standards|109| Compatibility
a All signs shall be architecturally compatible with and integrally related to, the design
features of the buildings structures and premises on which they are displayed
b In assessing compatibility the style color, material lighting and other components
and features of signs including their support elements decorative embellishments and
the buildings, structures and premises on which the signs are displayed, shall be taken
into account|109| Support elements The support elements for all signs shall appear to be free of any angle
iron, bracing, guy wires or similar features|109| Preferred sign features Signs with the following design features are preferred by the
City
a Non illuminated backgrounds for any interior illuminated canister sign or
indistinguishable backgrounds for wall and canopy signs that are not interior
illuminated
b Channel letters, neon script and similar three dimensional interior illummated sign
characters with a background that is not distinguishable from the building
Signs with backlit characters
Sign Illumination|109| External light sources shall be directed and shielded to limit direct illumination of any
object other than the sign
2 Sign lighting shall not be of an intensity or brightness that will create a nuisance for
residential properties in a direct line of sight to the sign
3 Signs shall not use colored lights or other design elements that may be confused with or
mistaken for traffic control devices
4 All bulbs and incandescent lamps that exceed 15 watts shall not be used on the exterior
surface of signs so that the face of the bulb or lamp is visible from a public right of way or
adjacent property
5 Light sources shall utilize energy efficient fixtures to the greatest extent possible
6 All lighting aimed at the exterior surface of a sign to illuminate it shall be provided with
opaque deflection or shielding devices as determined necessary by the Director to prevent
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3-63
•CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
the lighting source from glaring or shining onto adjacent properties and public rights-of
way
7 String lights with light bulbs exceeding one watt shall be prohibited exterior to a building
except in connection with allowable holiday signs and displays or as may be allowed in
connection with special or temporary events
8 Beacon and strobe lights shall be prohibited excluding aircraft warning lights required by
the Federal Aviation Agency
9 Exterior klieg lights (search lights) shall be allowed by permit issued by the Police
Department pursuant to this Code for grand openings special events and other promotions
Installation
1 In conjunction with replacement or modification of an existing sign any newly exposed
portions of a building or structure on which the sign is displayed shall be repaired and
repainted as necessary to restore a uniform appearance to the building surface or structure
prior to final inspection approval of the replacement or modified sign
Compliance with this requirement shall include the removal of any excess conduit and
supports and the patching or filling of any exposed holes|109| The electrical conduit from a sign to its power source shall be concealed or otherwise
obscured from view in a manner approved by the Director
G Maintenance Standards The following maintenance standards shall be continually met for all
signs within the City
1 Maintenance of a sign shall include periodic cleaning replacement of flickering, burned
out or broken light bulbs mending or replacement of any faded, peeled cracked or
otherwise damaged or broken parts thereof, and other activities as necessary to comply
with the purpose and intent of this Chapter
2 Maintenance shall include repainting of a painted sign that has faded or that is on a
building or structure that is repainted provided that the repainted sign is identical to the
former sign in message content size and location on the building or structure
3 Special and routine maintenance shall be caused to be practiced as necessary by the owner
or occupant of premises at the owner's or occupant s expense regardless of the cause of the
state of disrepair of the sign or of the occupancy vacancy status of the premises
17 330 035 — Prohibited and Restricted Signs
A Prohibited Signs The following signs shall be specifically prohibited|109| Emitting signs As used herein signs that emit smoke steam laser or hologram lights or
other similar features
•
•
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3 64•
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
2 Hazardous signs As used herein signs that constitute a public nuisance or a potential
threat to the health, safety or well being of the general public due to their height
illumination intensity location movement, placement size or other design features or
characteristics
3 Signs covering architectural features Signs that cover any portion of a visually
prominent three-dimensional relief detail that adorns embellishes or ornaments an
architectural feature of a building or structure (e g a fresco medallion lantern, decorative
tile work sculpted cornice routed or recessed numerals or letters etc )|109| Home occupation signs Signs advertising home occupations
B Restricted Signs The following signs are prohibited except where allowed under certain
circumstances as outlined in this Section or through the approval of a master sign program
1 Active signs Including animated signs beacon light signs, blinking signs, flashing signs
(except for theater signs as provided m Section 17 330 025), strobe light signs and variable
message signs (except for changeable copy signs and electronic message signs as provided
in Section 17 330 025), or active signs as may be approved under a master sign program|109| Balloon signs Except as provided in Sections 17 330 025 for special events and
temporary events|109| Changeable copy signs Except as provided in Section 17 330 025 for certain specific
uses or as may be approved under a master sign program
4 Freeway-oriented signs As may be approved under a master sign program
5 Moving signs As may be approved under a master sign program|109| Off-site signs Except as provided in Section 17 330 040 for certain public right of-way
signs
7 Portable freestanding signs Including A frame and sandwich type signs, except as may
be approved under Sections 17 330 025 for special events or temporary events
8 Roof signs Except for certain theater signs as may be approved under a master sign
program, or historical signs if approved under Chapter 38 of the Municipal Code
9 Improperly attached signs Signs that are attached to or suspended between trees, light
poles utility poles or similar devices not ongmally designed intended or approved for the
purpose of supporting signs, except as may be approved under Section 17 330 025 for
special events or temporary events
10 Signs on historical buildings Signs that are added to or modified on historically
designated buildings or structures except as may be approved under Chapter 15 05
(Historic Preservation Program) of the Municipal Code
11 Vehicle signs A vehicle sign is any temporary sign that is attached to or placed on or
against any stationary motor vehicle or trailer and that identifies advertises or promotes a
business, but excluding signs that are permanently or magnetically attached to motor
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005— PC Approved Final Draft
3-65
sciCULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
vehicles or rolling stock that are regularly used to conduct normal business activities such
as deliveries service calls field work or related duties
12 Wind activated signs Except institutional flags corporate flag decorative banner and
flag signs special event signs or temporary event signs as provided in Section 17 330 025
17 330 040 — Signs in the Public Right -of-Way
The authorizations prohibitions and restrictions of this Section shall apply to all publicly and privately
owned or controlled signs in the public right of way except as provided in Subsection 17 330 025 K
A Privately owned or controlled temporary or permanent signs shall be prohibited on or over the
public right of way, except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this Title or other duly enacted
legislation of the City This Section also shall not apply to signs in any portion of the public
right of way that is temporarily or permanently m use for private commercial or non-commercial
purposes other than transportation purposes pursuant to a lease license, permit or other
entitlement issued by the City
Temporary or permanent signs placed by the City Redevelopment Agency or other authorized
government agency (as specified in Subsection 8 below) or their respective agent for public
purposes shall be allowed in the public right-of way This Section shall not be interpreted to
impose an obligation on the City or Redevelopment Agency to place any signs in the public
right of-way except as required by law Allowable signs may include signs relating to any of
the following
1 Regulation of traffic and traffic safety including pedestrian and bicycle traffic and parking
2 Identification or directions to streets public buildings and facilities public or private
medical lodging transportation educational sanitation or other facilities or services public
or private places or events of public interest scenic or historical resources, or other
destinations or points of interest
3 Access to public services or facilities
4 Safety and emergencies including identification and warning signs concerning potential
hazards or hazardous conditions utility installations flood hazards or flood control facilities
emergency conditions or services and crime and accident scene control
5 Flags or emblems of the United States, California or of another government governmental
agency or public institution
6 Statements concerning any policy of the City and/or Redevelopment Agency
7 Promotion of civic events and activities
a Signs allowed by this Subsection shall be limited to signs banners pennants or other
displays placed by the City and/or Redevelopment Agency relating to any civic event
or activity organized or sponsored by the City or Redevelopment Agency
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3 66CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
•
Signs 17 330
For the purposes of this subsection the following definitions shall apply
Civic event or activity means any event or activity organized or sponsored by
the City or Redevelopment Agency including but not limited to, (a) any public
program or educational activity, and (b) the commemoration or celebration of any
historical date, event or person holiday or persons or events of local state or
national significance
'Sponsored, for purposes of this Section means that the City and/or
Redevelopment Agency is (a) participating in an official capacity in the planning,
preparation or promotion of the event or activity and (b) contributing 25% of the
total estimated costs of the civic event or activity or at least $1,000 whichever is
less This contribution may take the form of funds, labor staff time, matenals a
waiver of fees, or any combination of the foregoing
7 Any other signs posted by a public agency exercismg its legal authority of performing
governmental functions within the City s public right-of way
17 330 045 — Non-Conformmg Signs
A Abatement of Nonconforming Signs
1 Except as provided in Subsection 2, below and notwithstanding any other nonconforming
provisions of this Title any legal nonconformmg sign that would otherwise be allowed to
remain under this Chapter shall be removed or modified to conform to the requirements of
this Chapter as follows
a Abandonment A nonconforming sign that is no longer in active use because the
business has ceased operatmg at the premises where the sign is located shall be
removed within 90 days of cessation of the busmess
b Agreement A nonconforming sign that is subject to an agreement between the City
and the sign owner may remain m accordance with the provisions of that agreement
Change of copy, sign face area, and/or structure
The sign copy or sign face area on existing nonconforming signs for new or
existing businesses may be changed as long as there is no alteration to the physical
structure or support elements of the sign Any such change shall not require other
nonconforming signs on site to be brought into compliance
ii The physical structure or support elements of any one existing nonconforming
sign for an existing business may be changed as long as the total combined
maximum amount of allowable sign face area is not exceeded Any such change
shall not require that other nonconforming signs on the site be brought into
compliance
•
d Damage A nonconforming sign that sustains less than 50 percent damage to its
structure shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible but not more than 180 days
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005— PC Approved Final Draft
3-67CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
after the date of the damage If damaged more than 50 percent it shall be removed or
modified to meet this Title within 180 days of the date of the damage
Intensification All nonconforming signs for a business premises shall be made to
conform to this Chapter
When a new business intensifies the use of a property which will require a Site
Plan and Design Review or a similar discretionary review as set forth in this Title
ii When a remodel or expansion of an existing business results in doubling the gross
square footage of an existing building or exceeds 10 000 square feet whichever is
less
f Facade remodel Remodel of a front building facade shall require that all
nonconforming signs located on the front facade or affected by the facade remodel be
brought into compliance
g New freestanding sign Addition of a new freestanding sign shall require that all
nonconforming signs on the site be brought into compliance However the addition
of other new conforming signs on the site shall not require that other nonconforming
signs be brought into compliance
h Relocation A nonconforming sign proposed to be relocated shall be made
conforming at the time of relocation, except where the relocation occurs as a result of
a City or Redevelopment Agency public improvement project
Traffic hazard/unsafe condition Any nonconforming sign that constitutes a traffic
hazard or creates any other unsafe condition shall be subject to immediate removal or
modification as necessary to eliminate the hazardous or unsafe condition
2 City or Redevelopment Agency revitalization programs A business participating in a
City or Redevelopment Agency sponsored revitalization program shall not be required to
make all nonconforming signs on the premises conform at the time of revitalization unless
the revitalization program specifically requires such compliance
3 Sign removal Any nonconforming sign may be removed as a singular improvement
without requiring other nonconforming signs to be simultaneously removed
17 330 050 — Sign Permit Requirements
No sign shall be installed, constructed or altered unless it is first approved in compliance with this
Section
•
•
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3-68•
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
A Review Process The Director shall review and may approve a sign if the proposed sign is m
substantial conformance with the requirements ofthis Chapter any approved multi-business sign
program or master sign program In addition, the installation of any sign may require a building
permit, as determined by the Building Official
Hardship Exemptions
1 Where the owner/user of a proposed or existing sign believes that compliance with the
provisions of this Chapter, coupled with unusual geographic or buildnig design and
configuration conditions pertaining to the site or contractual conditions limiting the use
thereof, would create an undue economic hardship on the use of property (s)he may apply
to the Director for a hardship exemption
The Directors decision in such cases shall be based on one or more of the following
criteria
a The site is unusual in size, shape or topography
b Improvements on the site or on adjoining public or private properties cause a visual
obstruction
The site is improved with a multiple business development and is encumbered by an
existing contractual obligation that precludes the modification of one or more other
existing signs for other businesses at the same time as the installation of a new sign or
a modification to an existing sign on the same sign structure is proposed for a business
on the premises|109| Approval of a hardship exemption may be subject to conditions, such as specific limitations
on the time that a new or modified sign may be displayed|109| The applicant has the burden of proof to show to the City's satisfaction that a hardship
exists
C Comprehensive Sign Programs|109| Multiple business sign programs
a The purpose of a multiple business sign program is to achieve design compatibility
amongst all signs displayed on a single ownership parcel that is occupied by two or
more separate businesses
b The submittal of a multiple business sign program shall be required for each multi
tenant development that is occupied by two or more separate businesses at the time the
first new permanent sign or first modification to an existing permanent sign on the
premises is proposed except that a multiple business sign program is not required for
a project with an approved master sign program
A multiple business sign program, or the equivalent, approved prior to the effective
date of this Title or any amendment to this Title shall be revised, if necessary, to
conform to this Chapter at the time the first new permanent sign or modification to an
existing permanent sign is proposed on the premises
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005— PC Approved Final Draft
3 69 6°3CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
Signs 17 330
d A multiple business sign program shall be submitted by or with the consent of the
property owner or master lessor
A multiple business sign program shall consist of plans and text describing the details
of all signs existing to remain modified and new signs that are and that may be
displayed on the premises
f The Director shall prepare and furnish to potential multiple business sign program
applicants a list of the items and criteria to be addressed in a multiple business sign
program
g Only the types of signs allowed by the regulations of this Chapter shall be approved
under a multiple business sign program
h The Director shall approve conditionally approve or disapprove any application for a
multiple business sign program
2 Master sign programs
a The primary purpose of a master sign program is to provide a mechanism by which
the sign regulations established in this Chapter can be modified to insure that signs for
a uniquely planned or designed development or area are most appropriate for that
particular development or area
b A master sign program may be
Required by the Director for any development that requires a Site Plan Review
in compliance with Chapter 17 540 or a similar discretionary review or
ii Requested by the owner or master lessor of a development or
iii Initiated by the City or the Culver City Redevelopment Agency for a particular
area in furtherance of a specific plan revitalization program overlay zone or
other area wide planning tool
A master sign program may include provisions that are, at the same time both more
restrictive in some respects and less restrictive in other respects than the regulations
established in this Chapter Less restrictive provisions in a master sign program may
also include signs that are otherwise prohibited or restricted by this Chapter
d The City desires to encourage creative sign proposals where the standard provisions of
this Chapter do not well suit a particular need situation or circumstance In exchange
certain signs that otherwise would be allowed by this Chapter might not be allowed
Each master sign program applicant shall show to the Directors satisfaction why the
modifications requested are warranted and how the total sign proposal for the
development meets on balance the general purpose and intent of this Chapter
•
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 —PC Approved Final Draft
3-70
CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING CODE
•
Signs 17 330
f A master sign program or the equivalent that was approved by the City or
Redevelopment Agency prior to the effective date of this Title or any amendment to
this Title, shall be deemed to conform to this Chapter
The Director shall approve conditionally approve or disapprove any application for a
master sign program
h A new master sign program approval shall be obtained for substantial revisions to the
original approval, as determined by the Director
Appeals of Decisions A decision rendered by the Director may be appealed to the Commission
in compliance with Section 17 630 030 (Appeals of Decision)
Article 3 Site Planning & General Development Standards August 2005 — PC Approved Final Draft
3-71Exhibits to Staff Report Relating to
City's Ordinances Amending Sign Code|109| Anheuser Busch v Schmoke
101 F 3d 325 (4th Cir 1996), cert denied 520 U S 1204 (1997)|109| City of Riverside v Valley Outdoor Inc
2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist 2005)|109| City and County of San Francisco v Eller Outdoor Advertising
192 Cal App 3d 643 (1987)|109| Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc v City of Los Angeles
340 F 3d 810 (9th Cir 2003)|109| Covenant Media of Cal LLC v City of Huntington Park
377 F Supp 2d 828 (CD Cal 2005)|109| Gerritsen v City of Los Angeles
994 F 2d 570 (9th Cir 1993)|109| Get Outdoors II, LLC v City of San Diego
381 F Supp 2d 1250 (S D Cal 2005)|109| Get Outdoors II, LLC v City of Lemon Grove
378 F Supp 2d 1232 (S D Cal 2005)|10 9| Horizon Outdoor LLC v City of Industry
228 F Supp 2d 1113 (C D Cal 2002)
10 Members of the City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent
466 U S 789, 104 S Ct 2118, 80 L Ed 3d 772 (1984)
11 Metromedia, Inc v City of San Diego
453 US 490, 101 S Ct 2992,69 L Ed 2d 800 (1981)
12 Outdoor Media Group Inc v City of Beaumont
374 F Supp 2d 881 (CD Cal 2005)
13 Reno v American Civil Liberties Union
521 US 844, 117S Ct 2329, 138 L Ed 2d 874 (1997)
14 Big Sign Firm Accused of Corruption
by Ted Rohrlich, Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2005LAW OFFICES
Fox & SOHAGI, LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
10960 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1270
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 3702
FACSIMILE
(310) 444-7813
TELEPHONE
(310) 444 7805
HELEgES (.6.1VDP,1
%(1113b
PHILIP A SEVMuUrN
DA10600/1127
1111T§SF66
OF COUNSEL
IJ1L,AIJ,
• n C/T Y OF CUL
r
Y1 R S C 7
) Y —
77
DEBORAH J FOX
MARGARET MOORE SOHAGI
STEVEN L FLOWER
October 27, 2005
To Heather Iker, Assistant City Attorney
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Boulevard
Second Floor
Culver City, California 90232
From
Deborah J Fox, Esq
Subject
Exhibits to Staff Report
Billing No
Enclosed Please Find EXHIBITS TO STAFF REPORT RELATING TO
CITY' ORDINANCES AMENDING SIGN CODE
LI For your information and files
LI Please review and telephone me
In accordance with your request
LI Please sign and return to me
LI Please acknowledge receipt
LI OtherPage 1
101 F 3d 325
65 USLW 2340 24 Media L Rep 2491
(Cite as 101 F 3d 325)
Umted States Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit
Nos 94-1431, 94-1432
Nov 13 1996
ANHEUSER BUSCH INCORPORATED
Plaintiff Appellant
Kurt L SCHMOKE m his official capacity as Mayor
of Baltimore City Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore City City Council of
Baltimore City David
Tanner in his official capacity as the General
Superintendent of Zorung
Administration and Enforcement
Defendants Appellees
and
John Joseph Curran Attorney General of the State of
Maryland m his official
capacity Defendant
The Association of National Advertisers
Incorporated The American
Association of Advertising Agencies The Media
Institute National
Association of Broadcasters The Thomas Jefferson
Center for the Protection of
Free Expression Washmgton Legal Foundation
Center for Science in
the Public Interest Coalition for Beautiful
Neighborhoods Baltimore City
Wide Liquor Coalition for Better Laws and
Regulations Amici Curiae
PENN ADVERTISING OF BALTIMORE
INCORPORATED Plaintiff Appellant
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE
CITY A Municipal Corporation Defendant
Appellee
and
John Joseph Curran Attorney General of the State of
Maryland in his official
capacity Defendant
The Association of National Advertiseis
Incorporated The American
Association of Advertising Agencies The Media
Institute National
Association of Broadcasters The Thomas Jefferson
Center for the Protection of
Free Expression Washington Legal Foundation
Centel for Science in
the Public Interest Coalition for Beautiful
Neighborhoods Baltimore City
Wide Liquor Coalition for Better Laws and
Regulations Amici Cume
The United States District Court for the District of
Maryland JohnR Hargrove Senior District Judge 855
F Supp 811 upheld against First Amendment attack
city ordmance bannmg stationary outdoor advertising of
alcoholic beverages in certain areas of city where
children were likely to walk to school or play The
Court of Appeals 63 F 3d 1305 affirmed The United
States Supreme Court 517 U S 1206 116 S Ct 1821
134 L Ed 2d 927 granted certiorari and vacated
judgment for reconsideration m light of 44 Liquormart
Inc v RhodeIsland 517 U S 484 116 S Ct 1495 134
L Ed 2d 711 On remand the Court of Appeals
Niemeyer Circuit Judge held that city ordinance
prohibiting placement of stationary outdoor advertismg
that advertised alcoholic beverages in areas where it
was likely to be encountered by minors merely
restricted time place and manner of such
advertisements did not violate First Amendment's
commercial speech guarantees
Judgment of District Court affirmed
Adopting in part opnuon at 63 F 3d 1305
Butzner Senior Circuit Judge filed dissenting opinion
West Headnotes
Constitutional Law C=90 3
92k90 3 Most Cited Cases
Intoxicating Liquors C—'15
223k15 Most Cited Cases
City ordinance prohibiting placement of stationary
outdoor advertising that advertises alcoholic beverages
in certain areas where children are likely to walk to
school or play in effort to promote welfare and
temperance of minors did not violate commercial
speech protections of First Amendment unlike statute
bannmg all advertising of liquor prices ordinance
expressly targeted persons who could not be legal users
of alcoholic beverages moreover ordinance did not
foreclose plethora of newspaper magazine radio
television direct mail Internet and other media
available to liquor manufacturers USCA
Const Amend 1Page 2
Eric Michael Rubin Walter E Diercks Jeffrey Hams
Rubin Winston Diercks Hams & Cooke Washington
D C John Joseph Walsh Steven G Brody
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft New York New
York Thomas M Wood IV Neuberger Quinn
Gielen Rubin & Gibber P A Baltimore Maryland P
Cameron DeVore Davis Wright Tremame Seattle
Washington for Appellant
Neal M Janey City Solicitor Burton Harry Levin
Principal Counsel Depaitment of Law Baltimore
Maryland for Appellees Richard E Wiley Lawrence
W Secrest III Damel E Troy Luis de la Torre Frank
Winston Jr Wiley Rein & Fielding Washington
D C J Joshua Wheeler Robert M ()Neil Thomas
Jefferson Center for the Protection *327 of Free
Expression Charlottesville Virginia for Amici Curiae
Media Institute et al Darnel J Popeo David A Price
Richard A Samp Washmgton Legal Foundation
Washington D C for Amiens Curiae Washington
Legal Foundation Christopher J Fritz Julie Ellen
Squire Thomas C Dame Gallagher Evehus & Jones
Baltimore Maryland for Amici Curiae Coalition for
Beautiful Neighborhoods et al George Hacker
Center for Science in the Public Interest Washington
D C for Amicus Curiae Center for Science John F
Kamp Washington D C Gilbert H Weil New York
New York Burt Neubome New York New Yolk for
Amici Curiae Association of National Advertisers Inc
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON Circuit Judges
and BUTZNER Senior Circuit Judge
Affirmed by published opinion Judge NIEMEYER
wrote the majority opinion in which Judge
HAMILTON joined Semi Judge BUTZNER wrote
a dissenting opinion
OPINION
NIEMEYER Circuit Judge
On May 13 1996 the Supreme Court handed down its
decision in 44 Lzquormart Inc v Rhode Island 517
US 484 116 S Ct 1495 134 L Ed 2d 711 (1996) and
a week later vacated our decision m this case and
remanded it to us for further consideration in light of
44 Liquormart Inc v Rhode Island 517 U S 1206
116 S Ct 1821 134 L Ed 2d 927 We have read the
opinion in 44 Liqzzormart and have considered its
impact on the judgment in this case Foi the reasons
that follow we conclude that 44 Liquorm art does not
require us to change our decision Accordingly we
affirm the district courts judgment for the ieasons
previously given and readopt our previous decision
[FN*]
See Anheuser-Busch Inc v Schmoke 63 F 3d
1305 (4th Cir 1995) (Anheuser-Busch I)
FN* In readoptmg our opinion we do not
contmue to rely on Posadas de Puerto Rico
Associates v Tourism Co of PR 478 U S
328 106 S Ct 2968 92 L Ed 2d 266 (1986)
in view of the doubt placed on that opinion by
a majority of the Court in 44 Liquormart See
517 U S at 116 S Ct at 1511 (Stevens J
concurring in the judgment) (joined by
Kennedy Thomas and Ginsburg JJ ) and 517
U S at 116 S Ct at 1522 (O'Connor J
concurring in the judgment) (joined by
Rehnquist C J and Souter and Breyer JJ )
Because we do not defer blindly to the
legislative rationale but rather agree with
based on our own independent conclusion
about the fit between legislative objective and
the regulation used to achieve that objective
the holding in Posadas is not necessary to our
opinions upholding Baltimore City s
mdmance
In Anheuser-Busch I we upheld against a
constitutional challenge a city ordinance prohibiting the
placement of stationary outdoor advertising that
advertises alcoholic beverages m certain areas of
Baltimore City 63 F 3d at 1317 The ordinance was
designed to promote the welfare and temperance of
minors exposed to advertisements for alcoholic
beverages by banning such advertisements m particular
areas where children are expected to walk to school or
play in their neighborhood Id at 1314 17 Applying
the four prong test for evaluating commercial speech
announced m Central Hudson Gas & Elec Corp v
Pubhc Serv Comm n 447 U S 557 100S Ct 2343 65
L Ed 2d 341 (1980) we concluded in respect to the
disputed prongs that the ban of outdoor advertising of
alcoholic beverages in limited areas directly and
materially advances Baltimore s interest in promoting
the welfare and temperance of minors See
Anheuser-Busch I 63 F 3d at 1314 After our own
independent assessment we recognized the
reasonableness of Baltimore City s legislative finding
that there is a "definite correlation between alcoholic
beverage advertising and underage drinking' Id We
also concluded that the regulation of commercial speech
is not more extensive than necessary to serve the
governmental interest Id at 1316 17 Recognizmg
that in the regulation of commercial speech there is
some latitude in the fit between the regulation and thePage 3
objective we concluded that no less restrictive means
may be available to advance the government s interest
Id at 1316 While we acknowledged that the
geographical limitation on outdoor advertising may also
reduce *328 the opportunities for adults to receive the
information we recognize that there were numerous
other means of advertising to adults that did not subject
the children to involuntary and unavoidable
solicitation [while] walking to school or playing in
their neighborhood Id at 1314 Based on our close
look at Baltimore s asserted goal and the billboard
zoning used to achieve that objective we concluded
Although no ordinance of this kind could be so
perfectly tailored as to all and only those aieas to
which children are daily exposed Baltimore s efforts
to tailor the ordinance by exempting commercial and
industrial zones from its effort renders it not more
extensive than is necessary to serve the governmental
interest under consideration
Id at 1317
II
In 44 Liquormart by contrast the State prohibited all
advertising throughout Rhode Island in any manner
whatsoever " of the puce of alcoholic beverages except
for price tags or signs displayed with the beverages and
not visible from the street 517 U S at 116 S Ct at
1501 The State contended that the ban served the
State s interest in promoting temperance by keeping
alcoholic prices high and therefore consumption low
See id The district court found as a fact however that
the ban has no significant impact' on consumption 44
Liquor Mart Inc v Racine 829 F Supp 543 549
(D R 11993) The State also argued that the
Twenty first Amendment s delegation to the states of
the power to prohibit commerce in or the use of
alcoholic beverages U S Const amend XXI § 2
favors the state s ban of price advertising of alcoholic
beverages See 517 U S at 116 S Ct at 1502
The Supreme Court held the blanket ban
unconstitutional simply as an abridgement of speech
protected by the First Amendment and rejected the
claim that the Twenty first Amendment save [d] Rhode
Island s ban on liquor price advertising 517 U S at
116 S Ct at 1501 1514 15 The opinion
for the Court did not provide a rationale for its
conclusion that the ban violated the First Amendment
and no opinion addressing the First Amendment
violation commanded a majority of the Court Under
Marks v UnitedStates 430 U S 188 97 S Ct 990 51
L Ed 2d 260 (1977) when a fragmented Court decides
a case and no single rationale explaining the result
enjoys the assent of five Justices the holdmg of the
Court may be viewed as that position taken by those
Members who concurred in the judgments on the
narrowest grounds Id at 193 97 S Ct at 993
Applying the Marks rule eight justices in three
separate opinions concluded that the mechanism of
keeping alcoholic prices high as a way to keep
consumption low imposes too broad a prohibition on
speech to be justified by the end See 44 Liquorm art
517 U S at 116 S Ct at 1509 10 (Stevens J
concurrmg in the judgment) id at 116 S Ct at
1519 (Thomas J concurring in the judgment) id at
116 S Ct at 1521 22 (0 Connor J
concurring in the judgment) Justice Stevens joined by
Justices Kennedy Souter and Ginsburg noted that
without any findings of fact or indeed any evidentiary
support whatsoever we cannot agree with the assertion
that the price advertising ban will significantly advance
the State s interest in promoting temperance Id at
116 S Ct at 1509 Justice Stevens also noted that
alternative forms of regulation were available that
would not impinge speech and would be more likely to
achieve the State s goal of promoting temperance As
the State's own expert conceded higher prices can be
maintained either by direct regulation or by increased
taxation Id at 116 S Ct at 1510 Similarly
Justice O'Connor writing an opinion in which Chief
Justice Rehnquist Justice Souter and Justice Breyer
joined concluded
If the target is simply higher prices generally to
discourage consumption the regulation imposes too
great and unnecessary a prohibition on speech m
order to achieve it [T]he objective of lowering
consumption of alcohol by banning price advertising
could be accomplished by establishing minimum
prices and/or by increasing sales taxes on alcoholic
beverages
*329 1d
at 116 S Ct at 1521 22 (0 Connor
J concurring m the judgment) (quoting 44 Liquormart
Inc v Rhode Island 39 F 3d 5 7 (1st Cir 1994)
(quoting Rhode Islands expert witness)) Justice
0 Connor concluded that because the regulation fails
even the less stringent standard set out in Central
Hudson nothing here requires adoption of a new
analysis for the evaluation of commercial speech
regulation Id at 116 S Ct at 1522 (0 Connor J
concurring m the judgment) Eight justices thus
concluded that keeping legal users of alcoholic
beverages ignorant of prices through a blanket ban on
price advertising does not further any legitimate end
See id at 116 S Ct at 1509 10 (Stevens J
concurring in the judgment) id at 116 S Ct at
1518 (Thomas J concurring in the judgment) id at
116 S Ct at 1521 22 (O'Connor J
concurring in the judgment)
III
While Rhode Island s blanket ban on price advertisingPage 4
failed Central Hudson scrutiny Baltimore s attempt to
zone outdoor alcoholic beverage advertising into
appropriate areas survived our close look at the
legislature s means of accomplishing its objective m
Anheuser Busch I Baltimore s ordinance expressly
targets persons who cannot be legal users of alcoholic
beverages not legal users as m Rhode Island More
sigmficantly Baltimore does not ban outdoor
advertising of alcoholic beverages outright but merely
restricts the time place and manner of such
advertisements And Baltimore s ordinance does not
foreclose the plethora of newspaper magazine radio
television direct mail Internet and other media
available to Anheuser Busch and its competitors
Moreover m Baltimore City s case neither the state
nor the city is attemptmg to undermine democratic
processes and circumvent public scrutiny by
substituting a ban on advertismg for a ban on the
product as the 44 Liquormart Court feared was the
case with Rhode Island 517 U S at 116 S Ct at
1508 (Stevens J concurring m the judgment) see also
id at 116 S Ct at 1517 (Thomas J concurrmg m
the judgment) (citing the dangers of permitting the
government to do covertly what it might not have been
able to muster the political support to do openly ')
Central Hudson 447 U S at 566 n 9 100 S Ct at
2351 n 9 Virginia Pharmacy Board v Virginia
Citizens Consumer Council 425 U S 748 780 n 8 96
S Ct 1817 1835n 8 48 L Ed 2d 346 (1976) (Stewart
J concurring) Rather in Baltimore City like m other
communities the possession and consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors has been already banned
directly and forthrightly through legislation See
Md Code Art 27 §§ 400 403A Baltimore s
restrictions thus reinforce the democratic
decisionmakmg mechamsm s conclusion as to the
dangerousness of underage drinking by protecting
cluldren from exposure to advertising which the
legislature reasonably considers harmful m itself to
children s maturation And far from underminnig the
free dissemination of information to independently
choosing consumers Baltimore s ordinance supports the
full development of its young so that they will be able
to assess their market options intelligently and
independently
In addition to the reasons given in Anheuser Busch I
and given here based on our consideration of 44
Liquormart the differences between the Baltimore and
Rhode Island regulations further support the
constitutionality of Baltimore s ordinance In contrast
to Rhode Island s desire to enforce adult temperance
through an artificial budgetary constraint Baltimore s
interest is to protect children who are not yet
independently able to assess the value of the message
presented This decision thus conforms to the Supreme
Courts repeated recognition that children deserve
special solicitude m the First Amendment balance
because they lack the ability to assess and analyze fully
the information presented through commercial media
In the context of cable television the Supreme Court
recently upheld restrictions on programming imposed
by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act as a means of protecting children from
indecent programming See *330Denver Area Educ
Telecommunications Consortium Inc v FCC 518
US 727 116 S Ct 2374 2386 135 L Ed 2d 888
(1996) (plurality opinion) In the context of the radio
medium, the Court has approved extra restrictions on
indecent speech because of the pervasiveness of the
medium and the presence of children in the audience
See FCC v Pacifica Foundation 438 U S 726
750 51 98 S Ct 3026 3040 41 57 L Ed 2d 1073
(1978) (comparing indecent speech during hours when
children are listening to the proverbial pig in the
parlor) see also Action for Children's Television v
FCC 58 F 3d 654 657 (D C Cir 1995) (upholding the
Public Telecommunications Act against a First
Amendment challenge based on the state's compelling
mterest in protectmg minors) cert denied - U S
1165 Ct 701 133 L Ed 2d 658 (1996) Smularly the
Supreme Court has sustamed a law which protected
children from non obscene literature See Ginsberg v
New York 390 U S 629 639 40 88 S Ct 1274
1280 81 20 L Ed 2d 195 (1968) And while it has
acknowledged a right to private possession of adult
pornography in the home see Stanley v Georgia 394
US 557 566 895 Ct 1243 1248-49 22 L Ed 2d 542
(1969) the Court has clearly distinguished child
pornography and allowed a stronger legislative
response to destroy a market for the exploitative use of
children Osborne v Ohio 495 U S 103 109 110
S Ct 1691 1696 109 L Ed 2d 98 (1990) see also
New York v Ferber 458 U S 747 759 102 S Ct
3348 3355 56 73 L Ed 2d 1113 (1982) The
underlying reason for the special solicitude of children
was articulated long ago A democratic society rests
for its continuance upon the healthy well rounded
growth of young people into full maturity as citizens"
Prince v Massachusetts 321 U S 158 168 64 S Ct
438 443 88 L Ed 645 (1944)
Baltimore s ordinance attempts to protect its children
in a manner and with a motive distinct from those
evidenced by Rhode Island in 44 Liquormart and in
accord with an unbroken chain of Supreme Court cases
which indicate its desire to ensure that children do not
become lost in the marketplace of ideas Accordingly
on reconsideration of our Central Hudson analysis of
the time place and manner restriction in
Anheuser Busch I in light of 44 Liquorm art we again
affirm the judgment of the district courtPage 5
IT IS SO ORDERED
BUTZNER Semor Circuit Judge dissenting
I dissent because I believe we should vacate the district
courts judgments and remand these cases for
evidentiary hearings I address m this dissent both the
cases pertaining to advertising of alcoholic beverages
and the case pertaining to the advertising of cigarettes
The district court whose judgment we review noted
that the parties agree that 'the [Anheuser Busch]
advertising at issue is not unlawful or misleading and
that the City's interest in promoting the welfare and
temperance of minors is substantial
Anheuser Busch Inc v Mayor and City Council 855
F Supp 811 813 (D Md 1994) This agreement
established that the advertising satisfies the first two
parts of the test the Supreme Court prescribed foi
determmmg whether regulation of commercial speech
violates the First Amendment See Central Hudson
Gas & Elec Corp v Public Serv Comm in 447 U S
557 566 100 S Ct 2343 2351 65 L Ed 2d 341
(1980) The difficulty in these cases and in the related
case pertaining to cigarette advertising [FN*] arises
from the third and fourth parts of the Central Hudson
inquiry These are whether the regulation directly
advances the governmental interest asserted and
whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to
serve that mterest ' Central Hudson 447 U S at 566
100 S Ct at 2351 In the cigarette advertising case the
district court noted that the parties agree with the
first but not the second part of the Central Hudson
test Penn Advertising 862 F Supp at 1406 This
slight difference in the posture of the cases *331 does
not change my analysis of the proper response to the
Supreme Court s remand
FN* Penn Advertising of Baltimore Inc v
Mayor and City Council 862 F Supp 1402
(D Md 1994) affd 63 F 3d 1318 (4th
Cir 1995) vacated and remanded sub nom
Penn Advertising of Baltimore Inc v
Schmoke 518U S 1030 116 S Ct 2575 135
L Ed 2d 1090 (1996)
My dissent concerns how we should respond to the
Supreme Court's remand and what procedures we
should follow at this stage of the litigation My dissent
does not undertake to express an opinion on the merits
of these cases I wholeheartedly agree with Baltimore's
officials the amzcz who support them, and the parties
that minors should not be encouraged directly or
subliminally to drink or smoke Nevertheless
balancing the First Amendment's protection of
commercial speech against the city s restriction of the
advertising at issue requires answering the third and
fourth inquiries of Central Hudson To obtain a sound
basis for decidmg these inquiries district and reviewing
courts need factual records The district courts reached
their decisions in Anheuser-Busch and Penn
Advertising without an evidentiary hearing Instead the
courts relied in large part on Posadas de Puerto Rico
Assoc v Tourism Co of P R 478 U S 328 106 S Ct
2968 92 L Ed 2d 266 (1986) and deferred to the
Baltimore City Council s legislative record and
findmgs Unfortunately the district courts did not have
the benefit of 44 Lzquormart Inc v Rhode Island 517
US 484 116 S Ct 1495 134 L Ed 2d 711 (1996)
In 44 Liquor Mart the district court did not accept
Rhode Island's legislative determination that bannmg
the advertising of liquor prices would reduce
consumption Instead the district court conducted an
evidentiary hearing and reached the conclusion which
was based on testimony at the hearing that the ban was
unconstitutional 44 Liquor Mart Inc v Racine 829
F Supp 543 (D R 11993) The court of appeals
reversed accepting as reasonable Rhode Islands
submission that competitive price advertismg would
increase consumption It held that the statute was
constitutional 44 Lzquormart Inc v Rhode Island 39
F 3d 5 (1st Cir 1994) In turn the Supreme Court
reversed cnticizmg the court of appeals reliance on
legislative findings to determme whether the ban of
commercial speech infringed the First Amendment 44
Liquormart 517 U S at 116 S Ct at 1503 04
(Stevens J) and 517 US at 116 S Ct at 1515
(0 Connor J concurnng m the judgment) By
deciding not to remand for an evidentiary hearing
despite the teaching of 44 Lzquormart I am concerned
that our court is following the First Circuits path
111 44 Lzquormart the Court criticized its own opinion
m Posadas 478 U S at 342 344, 106 S Ct at 2977
2978 because it had accepted as reasonable without
further mquiry Puerto Rico's assertions that the
regulations furthered the government's interest and were
no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest'
44 Liquormart 517 US at 116 S Ct at 1522
(0 Connor J concurring in the judgment) At least
seven members of the Court expressly decided not to
follow Posadas concludmg that a legislature s decision
to suppress commercial speech even if reasonable is
not entitled to deference 44 Lzquormart 517 U S at
116 S Ct at 1510 11 (Stevens J concurrmg
in the judgment) and 517 U S at 116 S Ct at 1522
(0 Connor J concurring m the judgment) Rather
than accept at face value the legislature's proffered
justification for a speech iegulation courts should takePage 6
a closer look' and carefully examine the relationship
between the asserted goal and the speech restriction
used to reach that goal' 517 U S at 116 S Ct at
1522 (0 Connor J concurring m the judgment) In
other words courts should examine the evidence
presented by the parties to make an independent
determination about whether the underlying facts satisfy
the Central Hudson test See 517 U S at 116
S Ct at 1509-10 (Stevens J concurring in the
judgment)
The independent evaluation that is now required is not
possible m the absence of a factual record It is true
that the positions taken by Baltimore may turn out to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence But
speculation about what might be is not enough to
resolve issues of First Amendment coverage that must
ultimately turn on factual findmgs In order to meet its
burden under Central Hudson the city must show not
merely that its regulation will advance its interest but
also that it will do so to a material degree' *33244
Liquormart 517 US at 116 S Ct at 1509
(Stevens J concurring in the judgment) (quoting
Edenfield v Fane 507 U S 761 771 113 S Ct 1792
1800 01 123 L Ed 2d 543 (1993)) Even assuming as
common sense might suggest that Baltimore s
restrictions will reduce underage drmkmg to some
degree without any findings of fact we cannot
determine whether the effect will be significant See 44
Liquormart 517 U S at 116 S Ct at 1509
(Stevens J concurring m the judgment) Accordingly
each party should be given the opportunity to present
evidence on this issue and to test the strength of the
opposing party s evidence
Baltimore must also show that its speech regulation is
narrowly tailored Anheuser Busch argued that the city
could implement other measures that would reduce
underage drinkmg as effectively as the advertising
restrictions without regulating speech The company
specifically suggested education programs and
increased law enforcement efforts Cf 44 Liquormart
517 US at -- 116 S Ct at 1510 (Stevens J
concurring in the judgment) and 517 U S at
116 S Ct at 1521-22 (0 Connor J concurring in the
judgment) The company s position must be viewed in
light of the numerous exceptions to the ordinance that
inevitably will allow a substantial amount of alcohol
advertising to reach a great number of minors The
company's argument should be evaluated on the
strength of the facts that support and negate it The
parties should be given the opportunity to present and
contest those facts
The same reasoning applies to Baltimore s restriction
on cigarette advertising Whether that restriction
advances the asserted governmental interest and
whether it is unnecessarily extensive raise factual
questions that only an evidentiary hearing can answer
For example Baltimore s transit buses which carry
children as well as adults are exempted from the
ordinance that restricts advertising of cigarettes The
ordinance permits such advertising at a ball park where
mmors watch games What effect these and similar
facts have on the validity of the city ordinance should
be weighed by a court
A charge that advertising restrictions mfrmge rights
guaranteed by the First Amendment requires careful
evaluation assessing the credibility of witnesses and
weighing the evidence These functions should be
performed by a judge not by a city council See 44
Ltquormart 517 US at 116 S Ct at 1511
(Stevens J concurring m the judgment) The court
should base its evaluation of the case on the facts
underlying the dispute and the reasonable inferences
drawn from those facts rather than the version of the
facts that appears m the allegations and legislative
findmgs By affirmmg the district court's judgment
without adducing and examining the facts a reviewing
court engages in the type of deferential review that 44
Liquorm art deems improper
Present in this litigation are questions about the
credibility of expert witnesses and genuine issues of
material fact concerning the inferences that reasonably
can be drawn from the evidence Because of these
circumstances neither summary judgment nor dismissal
under Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate
I would vacate the district court's judgment and remand
these cases for evidentiary hearings
101 F 3d 325 65 USLW 2340 24 Media L Rep 2491
END OF DOCUMENTNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 1
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available
California Rules of Court rule 977(a) prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published except as
specified by rule 977(b) This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 977
Court of Appeal Fourth District Division 2
Califorma
CITY OF RIVERSIDE Plaintiff and Appellant
VALLEY OUTDOOR INC Defendant and
Appellant
No E036258
(Super Ct No SCVSS115579)
Sept 13 2005
APPEAL fiom the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County Keith D Davis Judge Reversed and remanded
with directions
Gregory P Pnamos City Attorney James E Brown
Supervising Deputy City Attorney Bell On-ock &
Watase Michael A Bell Gremes Martin Stein &
Richland Timothy T Coates and Alan Diamond for
Plaintiff and Appellant
Van Etten Suzumoto & Becket Eliot G Disner and
Darrel C Menthe for Defendant and Appellant
OPINION
RICHLI J
*1 This action concerns five billboards built and
mamtamed by Valley Outdoor Inc (Valley) The
billboards violated a city ordinance governing signs
Valley however filed an action against the City of
Rive]. side (the City) in federal court for a declaration
that the sign ordinance violated the First Amendment
and to enjoin the City from enforcing it against Valley's
billboards
Shortly thereafter in a case to which Valley was not a
party this court held that portions of the sign ordinance
violated the First Amendment (although we upheld
other portions) When the City attempting to comply
with our opinion amended the sign ordmance Valley
promptly amended its federal complaint so as to
challenge the amended sign ordinance
The federal court entered judgment in favor of the City
It ruled that the City was entitled to remove the
billboards because Valley had built them without first
obtaining permits or inspections as required It further
ruled that in light of this conclusion it did not need to
consider Valley's claims that (1) the amended sign
ordinance was unconstitutional in other respects (2) a
permit application would have been futile or (3) the
City had a practice of accepting late filed permit
applications
Valley appealed the federal judgment to the federal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)
In connection with that appeal Valley sought a stay
preventing the City from requiring the removal of the
billboards while the appeal was pending Both the
federal court and the Ninth Circuit refused to issue such
a stay (although the federal court did enjoin the City
from requiring the removal of the billboard
foundations)
The City then filed this action in state court to require
Valley to remove the billboards Moreover the City
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the
removal of the billboards (except for the foundations)
befoie trial The trial court ruled that by virtue of the
collateral estoppel effect of the federal judgment the
City was entitled to a preliminary injunction However
it also ruled that in light of the possibility that the Ninth
Circuit might reverse the federal judgment it would not
iequire the removal of the billboards Instead it
enjoined Valley from displaying any commeicial
© 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 2
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
advertising on them
Both sides appeal Valley contends the trial court erred
by issuing any injunction at all it argues that the federal
judgment did not resolve all of its challenges to the
enforcement of the amended sign ordinance that it was
likely to succeed on the merits of those challenges and
that an injunction was barred by laches The City
contends the trial court erred by refusing to iequn e the
removal of the billboards
We will hold that under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel the federal court's rulings required the trial
court to issue the injunction the City was seeking
Valley has already litigated all of the factual and legal
clam-is it is raising here and lost Although the federal
court stopped short of ordering iemoval of the
billboards it clearly ruled that the City was entitled to
their removal Accordingly we will reject Valley s
appeal and we will uphold the City's
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A The Original Sign Ordinance
*2 In 1987 the City adopted an ordinance governing
signs (original sign ordinance) It was codified as
chapter 19 76 of the Riverside Municipal Code It
prohibited all [o]ff [p]remises signs subject to certain
exceptions (Foimer Riverside Mun Code §
19 76 020(A)(3) ) One such exception was that
billboards were permitted in two specified zones but
only if they met certain square footage height and
location restrictions (Former Riverside Mun Code §
19 76 020(B)(2) ) For example a billboard could not be
located within 750 feet of a freeway (Former Riverside
Mun Code § 19 76 020(B)(2)(a)(vii) )
The original sign ordinance required a permit for the
election construction or installation of almost any sign
(Former Riverside Mun Code § 19 76 210(1) ) It
established a permit fee (Forme' Riverside Mun Code
§ 19 76 210(4) ) If construction was begun before a
permit was obtained a higher permit fee applied
(Former Riveiside Mun Code § 19 76 210(5) )
Like other structures a sign had to have design review
approval before a permit would issue (Riverside
Mun Code §§ 19 62 020(B) 19 62 030 19 62 040
former Riverside Mun Code § 19 76 210(1)) and had
to be built in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code (Former Riverside Mun Code § 19 76 210(16) )
Moreover an electrical sign had to be installed in
accordance with the Uniform Electrical Code (Former
Riverside Mun Code § 19 76 210(17) )
B The Construction of the Billboards
On October 19 1999 we issued our tentative opinion
in City of Riverside v Outdoor Media Group Inc
Case No E022351 (OMG) We proposed to hold that
the ban on off premises signs in the original sign
ordinance violated the First Amendment and hence
that the exceptions to the ban also violated the First
Amendment However we proposed to hold that the
remammg portions of the ordinance were severable and
enforceable [FN1] The ban on billboards within 750
feet of a freeway was one of the portions we struck
down the permit requirement was one of the portions
we upheld
FN1 We take judicial notice of the date on
which we issued our tentative opinion
(Evid Code §§ 452 subd (d)(1) 459 subd
(a) ) In addition we accept Valley's
representation that the tentative opinion was
substantially similar to the final opinion
because it is not crucial to our decision and
because the City does not appear to dispute it
On January 8 2000 Valley began building five
billboards It did not apply for permits because it knew
that the billboards violated the original sign ordinance
and therefore the City would refuse to issue them
On January 10 2000 Valley filed an action against the
City in federal court challenging the original sign
ordinance on First Amendment grounds
On January 13 2000 we filed our final opinion in
OMG It was essentially the same as our tentative
© 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 3
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
opinion
On January 20 2000 an officer of Valley went to the
City s Office of Building and Safety with the intention
of applying for all necessary permits for the
billboards A City official however refused to accept
the application on the ground that billboards were not
allowed within 750 feet of a freeway
On February 1 2000 in response to our opinion in
OMG the City amended the original ordinance The
amendments however were not due to go into effect
until March 2 2000 Valley soon amended its federal
complaint so as to challenge the amended sign
ordinance on First Amendment grounds
*3 Meanwhile by February 20 2000 the billboards
were complete On February 25 2000 an officer of
Valley submitted design review permit applications for
the billboards He was told that if the City needed any
further information it would send a correction letter
Nevertheless in a notice mailed on March 1 2000 (and
hence not received until March 2 or later) the City
ejected the applications on the ground that they did not
adequately specify the color and matenal of the
supporting columns It invited Valley to reapply In
Valleys view the City was simply stalling until the
amended sign ordinance could go into effect
On March 3 2000 the City posted stop work notices
on the billboards citing the fact that they had been built
without permits On or about May 14 2000 the City
served Valley with notices ordering it to remove the
billboards citing several grounds including that they
had been built without permits
C The Fedei al COW t s Rulings
On July 10 2000 the fedeial court issued a
preliminary injunction enjonung the City florn
compelling Valley to iemove the billboaids
On October 21 2003 the date set for trial the City
bi ought a motion m lmune to preclude any evidence or
argument that it had improperly unlawfully or
unconstitutionally handled or refused to accept or
process permit applications and/or design[ ] approval
applications allegedly submitted to the City It
aigued that this issue was irrelevant because Valley
admitted building the billboards without permits and
the City was entitled to remove them for that reason
alone
In opposition Valley argued that the City had a
practice of allowing late filed permit applications It
also claimed the City had rejected its permit
applications as a covert way of contmumg to enforce
the unconstitutional provisions of the original sign
ordinance Valley specifically argued "that applying for
a permit would have been a futility and that [it] should
be excused from doing so
The federal court granted the motion in limme It
reasoned essentially that the City's permit requirement
had not been struck down in OMG and did not violate
the First Amendment Hence based on Valleys
admission that it had finished the billboards before even
applying for permits the City could require removal of
the billboards based on the permit requirement without
violating the First Amendment The federal court
concluded that whether (1) the City had improperly
processed Valley's permit applications or (2) the City
had a practice of accepting late filed permit
applications were irrelevant to the City s right to
removal of the billboards
The federal court also ruled that once it had granted
the motion in limme the City was entitled to judgment
as a matter of law It indicated that it would modify the
existing prelmunary injunction pending any appeal so
as to require Valley to remove the billboards down to
the foundations while preventing the City from
requiring Valley to remove the foundations the most
expensive part
*4 Accordingly on November 5 2003 the federal
court entered judgment in favor of the City and
modified the preliminary injunction pending appeal
Valley filed a motion for new trial argumg among
© 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported m Cal Rptr 3d
Page 4
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 VVL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
othei things that the federal court had en ed by failing
to consider (1) its constitutional challenges to the
amended ordinance (2) the availability of a late filed
permit and (3) whether a permit application would
have been futile
On December 22 2003 the federal court denied the
new trial motion It commented I narrowly decided
this case on the basis that [Valley was] barred from
introducing any evidence that the city improperly
refused to accept its post construction permit
applications We never got to the content Never got
to the constitutional validity of the new ordinance with
iegard to content regulation But I don t think we
needed to do that based upon the fact that there was
never a permit obtained
On January 7 2004 Valley filed a notice of appeal At
the same time it asked the Ninth Cn cult for an
emergency stay pending appeal It argued again that the
federal court had erred by failing to consider (1) its
constitutional challenge to the amended ordinance and
(2) the availability of a late filed permit
On January 15 2004 the Ninth Circuit denied Valleys
motion for a stay Sua sponte however it ordered a
limited remand to the district court for the sole
purpose of adjudicating any issues between the parties
in respect to the removal of nonconfonrung structures
pending appeal'
On February 23 2004 at the hearing on the limited
remand Valley asked the federal court to enjoin the
City from requiring removal of the billboaids As a
fallback however it asked the court not to order it to
emove the billboards It noted that its complaint merely
sought an order preventing the City from removing the
billboards the City had never cross complained for an
order affirmatively 7 equn mg their removal
The fedeial court iefused to enjoin the City from
emovmg the billboards it reasoned that the Ninth
Circuit had already refused to do so However it
accepted Valleys fallback argument [T]he only thing
I can do is the lawsuit would be dismissed and the City
could go ahead with its abatement proceeding
according to its local ordmances and state law It
therefore further modified the existing injunction so that
it enjomed only the City and then only from removing
the foundations of the billboards [FN2]
FN2 Our record does not contain any written
order modifying the injunction to conform to
this oral ruling Nevertheless there seems to
be no dispute that the injunction was
effectively modified
The federal court concluded "[T]he City can institute
its abatement proceedings and whatever defenses
[Valley] may have [Valley] may raise' It observed
however [B]ased upon this record the Superior
Court Judge will order immediate abatement and
whether or not he stays it pending the Ninth Circuit
ruling that's going to be up to the Superior Court
Judge
PROCEDURAL
II
BACKGROUND
*5 The City filed this action against Valley It alleged
among other things causes of action for abatement of
the billboards as a public nuisance on the grounds that
(1) they had been built without buildmg electrical or
use permits and without structural or electrical
inspections and (2) they violated the amended sign
ordinance The City also filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction requiring Valley to remove the
billboards
At the hearing on the motion the trial court indicated
that it would grant a preliminary injunction It agreed
with the City s contention that the federal judgment was
collateral estoppel on the merits It then commented
I am ieluctant to fashion an order today that would
allow the actual physical tear [ ]down of the billboards
And the reason I am reluctant is there still is the
pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit And I am
reluctant to have anyone go through the time trouble
and expense of having that done when there is the
possibility however remote that the Ninth Circuit may
in fact ieveise [the federal court] s ruling If that
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 5
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
happens obviously the billboards need to be replaced
at some sigmficant cost and I am concerned about that
Can I not simply order that until the Ninth Circuit
has finally determined this matter that there simply be
no advertising permitted on the billboaids and that
instead they be used for public service announcements
or other noncommercial usage?"
Counsel for the City responded I do think this
Court is empowered to and really should order the
removal of the signs above the foundations [I]f the
Court says it is doing this because it is waiting for the
appeal you really aren t giving full faith and credit full
collateral estoppel [effect] to the federal judgment
Counsel for Valley also opposed the trial courts
proposed approach 'So what the Court is doing is
saying in effect we are going to resolve the city's
problems by taking down the content when the content
isn t the real issue in the case and never has been He
added 'I would respectfully request that the Court
leave the signs as is leave the constitutionally protected
content on there
The trial court responded I haven t heard anything
to turn me around from my tentative Accordingly it
issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Valley from
using the billboards to display any commercial
message advertisement or visible copy
The City filed an extraordinary writ petition in this
court We denied it stating Petitioner has failed to
establish irreparable harm.
DISCUSSION
The appellate standard for reviewing preliminary
injunctions is well established In deciding whether to
issue a preliminary injunction a trial court weighs two
interrelated factors the likelihood the moving party
ultimately will prevail on the merits and the ielative
interim harm to the parties from the issuance or
nomssuance of the injunction [Citation] ] 'Generally the
ruling on an application for a preliminary injunction
rests in the sound discretion of the trial court The
exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on
appeal absent a showing that it has been abused
[Citations] ] [Citation]' (Huntv Superior Court (1999)
21 Cal 4th 984 999 quoting Cohen v Board of
Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal 3d 277 286)
*6 But [w]here the "likelihood of prevailing on the
merits factor depends upon a question of law the
standard of review is not abuse of discretion but
whether the superior court correctly interpreted and
applied [the] law which we review de novo '
[Citation ]" (Vo v City of Garden Grove (2004) 115
Cal App 4th 425 433 quoting Efstratis v First
Northern Bank (1997) 59 Cal App 4th 667 671-672)
On this record the application of collateral estoppel
presents a question of law (See Rohrbasser v Lederer
(1986) 179 Cal App 3d 290 296 297)
A Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The trial court ruled that the City had shown a
likelihood of success on the merits based on collateral
estoppel Valley contends this was error It additionally
contends the City failed to show a likelihood of success
on the merits independent of collateral estoppel
Because we will conclude below that the trial court
applied collateral estoppel correctly we will not
consider Valley s additional contention
'In general collateral estoppel precludes a party from
relitigatmg issues litigated and decided m a prior
proceeding [Citations] ] Traditionally we have applied
the doctrine only if several threshold requirements are
fulfilled Fust the issue sought to be precluded from
relitigation must be identical to that decided m a former
proceeding Second this issue must have been actually
litigated in the former proceeding Third it must have
been necessarily decided in the former proceeding
Fourth the decision in the former proceeding must be
final and on the merits Finally the party against whom
preclusion is sought must be the same as or in privity
with the party to the former proceeding [Citation ] '
(Gikas v Zolin (1993) 6 Cal 4th 841 848 849 quoting
Lucido v Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal 3d 335 341)
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported m Cal Rptr 3d
Page 6
Not Reported m Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 VVL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
California follows the rule that the preclusive effect of
a prior judgment of a federal court is determined by
federal law [Citations]' (Butcher v Truck Ins
Exchange (2000) 77 Cal App 4th 1442 1452 accord
Younger v Jensen (1980) 26 Cal 3d 397 411) Subject
to one exception however federal principles of
collateral estoppel are substantially the same as the state
pnnciples set forth above (See generally Arizona v
California (2000) 530 U S 392 413 [120 S Ct 2304
147 L Ed 2d 374 US v Mendoza (1984) 464 U S
154 158 [104 S Ct 568 78 L Ed 2d 379] ) The one
exception is that under state law a decision is not final
until it has been affirmed on appeal or the time to take
an appeal has passed Under federal law by contrast a
decision is final unless and until it is reversed on
appeal (Lump/on v Jordan (1996) 49 Cal App 4th
1223 1230 1231) Thus even though Valleys appeal
to the Ninth Circuit is still pending the federal court's
judgment is sufficiently final to have collateral estoppel
effect
In the federal action Valley claimed that requiring it to
remove the billboards based on either the ongmal sign
ordinance or the amended sign ordinance would violate
the First Amendment In response the City claimed that
the permit requirement was constitutional that Valley
had failed to comply with it and that it was therefore
entitled to require removal of the billboards
*7 The whole point of the City's motion in limme was
that because it could constitutionally require Valley to
remove the billboards based on the violation of the
permit requirement Valley s other contentions were
irrelevant These included the contentions Valley raised
in opposition to the motion in lmune including that (1)
portions of the original sign ordinance and the amended
sign ordinance other than the permit requirement were
unconstitutional (2) the City had processed Valley s
permit applications improperly and in bad faith and
(3) the City had a practice of accepting late filed permit
applications Thus by granting the City s motion m
limme and entering judgment for the City the federal
court actually and necessarily rejected each of these
contentions [FN3]
FN3 In its reply brief Valley argues that if
the federal judgment is collateral estoppel the
City s present claims necessarily were
compulsory counterclaims m the federal action
and are therefore barred (See Fed Rules Cw
Proc rule 13(a) ) It is unclear whether this is
an argument or just a rhetorical flourish To
the extent that it is an actual argument that the
City s claims are barred as compulsory
counterclaims we deem it waived because it
was not raised m Valley s opening brief
(Dieckmeyer v Redevelopment Agency of
Huntington Beach (2005) 127 Cal App 4th
248 260) and because it is not stated under a
separate heading or subheadmg or supported
by citation to legal authority as required by
Califonua Rules of Court rule 14(a)(1)(B)
Valley argues that there were at least five sigmficant
issues that were neither actually litigated nor necessarily
decided in the federal case We will discuss these
seriatim
First Valley argues that the federal court did not rule
on its constitutional challenges to the amended sign
ordinance It is true that it did not rule on the
constitutionality of any portion of the amended sign
ordmance other than the permit requirement It did rule
however that the permit requirement was
constitutional that the City was entitled to remove the
billboards because they violated the permit requirement
and therefore that Valleys other constitutional
challenges to the amended sign ordmance were
irrelevant Each of these determinations is collateral
estoppel here
Valley relies on the federal court s comment that the
City can institute its abatement proceedings and
whatever defenses [Valley] may have [Valley] may
raise The federal court did not mean however that it
was carving out all of Valley's defenses from its ruling
It evidently believed it had adjudicated all of Valleys
defenses as appears from its comment that' based upon
this record the Superior Court Judge will order
immediate abatement
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 7
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
In its reply brief Valley tries to recharactenze its
federal action as a purely facial challenge to the sign
ordinances and the federal court s judgment as a ruling
that Valley lacked standing to bring such a facial
challenge Thus it suggests that it can still challenge the
sign ordinances as applied to its billboards This is
nonsense The federal court never discussed
mentioned or even so much as alluded to standing It
ruled that the sign ordinances could constitutionally be
applied to Valley because Valley had violated the
permit requirement This was almost by definition the
rejection of an as applied challenge Indeed in seeking
a stay from the Ninth Circuit Valley argued The
amended ordinance is unconstitutional as applied
(Capitalization omitted )
Second Valley argues that the federal court did not
decide whether the permit requirement was excused
based on futility The record belies this claim In
opposition to the City's motion in Imune Valley
specifically argued futility it even made an offer of
proof of the facts underlying its futility claim By
granting the motion the federal court necessarily ruled
that even if a permit application would have been
futile the City was entitled to removal of the billboards
Again this aspect of its ruling is collateral estoppel
here
*8 At one point Valley claims the federal court refused
to leach the futility issue solely because Valley had
failed to specify it in a pretrial conference order (See
Fed Rules Civ Proc rule 16) Not so The federal
court s discussion of the futility defense demonstrates
that it considered it and squarely rejected it Although
Valley does not cite any portion of the record
supporting its assertion (see Cal Rules of Court rule
14(a)(1)(C)) it seems to be referring to a statement the
federal court made in its order denying Valley s motion
for new trial However this was merely one of two
alternative giounds the federal court gave for rejecting
the futility defense as a basis for a new trial it went on
to ieject the futility defense again on the merits
Third Valley argues that the federal court did not
decide whether the City s handling of its permit
applications was unreasonable or improper The very
point of the motion in linune however was to preclude
evidence of this Again Valley made an offer of proof
of the facts underlying this assertion And again the
federal court decided that the reasonableness or
unreasonableness of the City s permit handling was
Irrelevant Valley is bound by this rulmg
Fourth Valley argues that the federal court did not
decide whether it was constitutional for the City to
remove a billboard based solely on the failure to obtain
a permit We disagree That is precisely what the
federal court did decide
Fifth and finally Valley argues that the federal court
did not decide whether the City violated equal
protection by granting variances to other billboard
operators but not to Valley In its federal complaint
however Valley alleged similarly that the City had
violated equal protection by discnmmatmg against it
and in favor of its competitors based on its exercise of
its First Amendment rights Thus by entering judgment
against Valley the federal court necessanly ruled that
this was not a defense to removal of the billboards
In a footnote Valley argues that the pendency of the
federal appeal is relevant to the likelihood of success on
the merits Although by no means fleshed out the
argument seems to be that the possibility that the Ninth
Circuit might reverse the federal court s judgment
lessens the likelihood that the City will ultimately
prevail in state court
Although we have found no authonty directly on point
(and certainly Valley cites none) we believe this
approach would be inconsistent with the pnnciple that
a federal judgment is final for all res judicata purposes
even if it is still subject to reversal on appeal (See
Lumpkin v Jordan supra 49 Cal App 4th at pp
1230 1231 see generally Stoll v Gottlieb (1938) 305
US 165 170 [59 S Ct 134 83 L Ed 104] )
The Supreme Court has declared We are unable to
find reason or authority supporting the proposition that
because a judgment may have been given for wrong
© 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 8
Not Reported m Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 VVL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
reasons or has been subsequently reversed that it is any
the less effective as an estoppel between the parties
while in force (Deposit Bank v Bd of Councilmen of
Frankfort (1903) 191 US 499 511 [24 S Ct 154 48
L Ed 276] ) 'It would undermine the foundation of the
principle upon which [collateral estoppel] is based if the
court might inquire into and revise the reasons which
led the court to make the judgment In such case
nothing would be set at rest by the decree but the
matter supposed to be finally adjudicated and
concerning which the parties had had their day in court
could be reopened and examined and if the reasons
stated were in the judgment of the court before which
the estoppel is pleaded insufficient a new judgment
could be rendered because of these divergent views
and the whole matter would be at large (Id at pp
510 511 )
*9 Here if the trial court has been asked to treat the
federal judgment as collateral estoppel for purposes of
a final judgment including a permanent injunction
requiring removal of the billboards it would have had
to do so The federal judgment should be no less
conclusive merely because the issue before the trial
court was the likelihood that the City would obtain a
final judgment rather than the final judgment itself
Moreover we see no way the trial court could consider
the fact of the federal appeal without considering the
merits of the federal appeal Otherwise how could it
decide how much to discount the City s likelihood of
success9 It would have to inquire into the merits of the
fedei al courts reasons for its judgment Thus it would
usurp the Ninth Circuit s prerogative of reviewing that
judgment The Supreme Court has told us that a federal
judgment is deemed final despite the possibility of
reversal on appeal precisely to preclude any such
inquiry
We therefore conclude that the federal judgment
conclusively established for purpose of a preliminary
injunction that the City would prevail on the merits
B The Relative Interim Hai m to the Pai ties
Valley also contends that the balance of harms weighed
against the issuance of any injunction The City
responds among other things that just as the federal
court s judgment is collateral estoppel on the merits the
federal court's denial of an injunction pending appeal is
collateral estoppel on the balance of harms
When the federal court refused to grant Valley an
injunction pending appeal (except as to the billboard
foundations) it found that
1 [Valley] ha[s] not simply shown no likelihood of
success on the merits but ha[s] actually lost on the
merits of [its] claim and [the City] ha[s] shown not
simply a strong likelihood of success on the merits but
actual success on the merits
2 [T]he City has demonstrated irreparable harm m
that the City has a substantial public interest m the
enforcement of valid City regulations and laws
concerrnng billboards
3 In contrast [Valley] ha[s] failed to demonstrate any
likelihood of irreparable harm [Valley] ha[s] no right
to continue to earn income from, or engage m an
unlawful activity especially an activity that creates a
potential public safety hazard and m any event the
purely economic harm articulated by [Valley] would be
fully redressable through any damage award
Thus the federal court did in fact adjudicate the
balance of harms issue against Valley Valley argues
It is a fallacy to assert that if X is not entitled to an
injunction against Y then a fortiori Y is entitled to an
injunction against X ' But Valley's syllogism is
incomplete The federal court decided that Valley was
not entitled to an injunction against the City because the
balance of harms favored the City Here to determine
whether the City was entitled to an injunction the trial
court likewise had to decide whether the balance of
harms favored the City This was identical to the issue
already decided by the federal court Of course the
balance of harms by itself did not necessarily mean
that the City was entitled to an injunction When
coupled with the City's likelihood of success on the
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 9
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
merits however it did
*10 Valley notes that this court denied the City s
petition for a writ of mandate because the City had not
shown irreparable injury It argues that this finding
should be collateral estoppel against the City However
subject to exceptions not applicable here (see e g
Abraham v Workers' Comp Appeals Bd (2003) 113
Cal App 4th 1082 1089 1090) an order summarily
denying an extraordinary writ petition is not collateral
estoppel (Carretti v Italpast (2002) 101 Cal App 4th
1236 1241 1242 Lomes v Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc (2001) 88 Cal App 4th 127 132
fn 2 )
Valley does not argue that the federal courts denial of
an injunction pending appeal was not final for purposes
of collateral estoppel Thus we believe it has waived
any such argument Nevertheless if only out of an
excess of caution we will address it
Under federal law Winality for purposes of issue
preclusion is a more pliant concept than it would be
in other contexts [Citation ] (Henglein v Colt
Industries Operating Corp (3d Cir 2001) 260 F 3d
201 210 cert den (2002) 535 U S 955 [122 S Ct
1358 152 L Ed 2d 354] quoting Dyndulv Dyndul (3d
Cif 1980) 620 F 2d 409 412 ) The federal courts follow
section 13 of the Restatement Second of Judgments
(e g In re Bridgestone/Firestone Inc Tires Products
Liability Litigation (7th Cir 2003) 333 F 3d 763 767
RecoverEdge LP v Pentecost (5th Cir 1995) 44 F 3d
1284 1295) which states that for purposes of issue
preclusion (as distinguished from [claim preclusion] )
final judgment includes any prior adjudication of an
issue in another action that is determined to be
sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect
In practice [t]his may mean little more than that the
litigation of a particular issue has leached such a stage
that a couit sees no really good reason for permitting it
to be litigated again [Citation ] (In re Nangle (8th
Cir 2001) 274 F 3d 481 485 quoting John Morrell &
Co v Local Union 304A of United Food and
Commercial Workers AFL-CIO (8th Cir 1990) 913
F 2d 544 563 quoting Lummus Company v
Commonwealth Oil Refining Company (2d Cir 1961)
297 F 2d 80 89)
In determimng whether a decision is sufficiently
firm, the federal courts consider a number of factors
(1) whether the prior decision was 'adequately
deliberated and firm and not 'avowedly tentative
'(2) whether the parties were fully heard
(3) whether the court supported its decision with a
reasoned opinion
(4) whether the courts pnor decision was subject to
appeal or was in fact reviewed on appeal [Citation ]"
(Greenleafv Garlock Inc (3d Cir 1999) 174F 3d 352
358)
As a general rule the granting or dernal of a
preliminary injunction is not based on a final
decision on the merits and is not a final judgment for
the purposes of collateral estoppel [Citation ]"
(Medtronic Inc v Gibbons (8th Cir 1982) 684 F 2d
565 569) Nevertheless the general rule does not
apply and the grant or demal of a preliminary
injunction may be given collateral estoppel effect "if
the circumstances make it likely that the fmdmgs are
accurate [and] reliable [Citations ]" (Commodity
Futures Trading Corn n v Board of Trade (7th
Cir 1983) 701 F 2d 653 657 ) 'Preclusion would seem
to be particularly appropriate in a second action seeking
the same injunctive ielief [Citations] ] (Hawksbill Sea
Turtle v Fed Em Management Agency (3d Cir 1997)
126 F 3d 461 474 fn 11)
*11 For example in Walsh v Intern Longshoremen s
Ass'n AFL-CIO (1st Cir 1980) 630 F 2d 864 m
administrative proceedings before the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) several shippers had charged
a longshoremen s union with unfair labor practices (Id
at p 866) Under section 10(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U S C § 160(1)) (section 10(1)) when
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 10
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 VVL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
an unfair labor practice charge was pending before the
NLRB a regional director of the NLRB could file a
petition in federal court for a preliminary injunction
against the charged practices The district court would
determine only whether there was reasonable cause to
believe that the charged unfair labor practice had
occurred Moreover any such preliminary injunction
would be effective only until the NLRB adjudicated the
charges Hence ordinarily the grant or denial of a
preliminary injunction under section 10(1) was not final
and not collateral estoppel (Walsh at p 868)
In Walsh however because several shippers were
mvolved several regional directors brought separate
section 10(1) actions against the same union (Walsh v
Intern Longshoremen's Ass'n AFL CIO supra 630
F 2d at pp 866 867 ) In the first one of them to go to
a decision the district court denied a preliminary
injunction on the ground that the NLRB lacked
jurisdiction (Id at p 866 ) Later in Walsh the district
court refused to treat the earlier ruling as collateral
estoppel (Id at p 867)
The Court of Appeals held that the first denial of a
preliminary injunction should have been treated as
collateral estoppel in the second (Walsh v Intern
Longshoremen's Ass n AFL CIO supra 630 F 2d at
pp 867 875 ) Thus it held among other things that the
first denial was sufficiently final for this purpose
The limited effect of a section 10(1) decision flows
naturally from the limited role of the district court in
hearing the petition The court does not decide whether
an unfair labor practice has occurred that decision is
foi the Board subject to review by the court of
appeals
But the district court in a section 10(1) proceeding
does decide the limited issue of whether there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation has
occurred so that injunctive relief is warranted We have
been offered no persuasive reason to view that decision
on that narrow issue as anything but a final decision for
purposes of res judicata In our view the policies
undeilying the rule of res judicata apply as well to
decisions on section 10(1) as to other decisions The
parties in a section 10(1) proceeding have full and fair
opportunity to litigate the narrow issue which is placed
before the district court [citation] The party against
whom the petition is decided may appeal to the court of
appeals [citation]
Once the Board has been afforded this opportunity to
have its petition heard and adjudicated in the district
court and to appeal the denial of relief to the court of
appeals we see no reason to permit it to bring a second
petition against the same respondent based on the same
underlying charge This type of repetition which would
be as expensive and vexatious to the respondent as any
other type of litigation is exactly what the rule of res
judicata is designed to prevent" (Walsh v Intern
Longshoremen's Ass'n AFL CIO supra 630 F 2d at
pp 868 869 quoting Montana v US (1979) 440 U S
147 154 [99 S Ct 970 59 L Ed 2d 210] see also
Avitia v Metropolitan Club of Chicago Inc (7th
Cir 1991) 924 F 2d 689 690 693 [demal of plaintiffs
first motion for preliminary injunction was collateral
estoppel and required denial of plaintiffs second
motion for preliminary injunction] )
*12 For purposes of finality this case is on all fours
with Walsh Admittedly in one sense the federal court s
ruling denying an injunction pending appeal was
tentative because it was intended to be effective only as
long as Valley's appeal is pending m the Ninth Circuit
Similarly however in Walsh the ruling denying a
preliminary injunction was intended to be effective only
as long as the administrative charges were pending
before the NLRB In both instances on the issue of
whether to issue an injunction including the subissue
of the balance of harms the rulings were final Absent
changed circumstances Valley could not keep going
back to the federal court and filing new motions for an
injunction pending appeal
Moreover the parties were fully heard The federal
court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion
Finally although the federal court s order was not
techmcally appealable (Shiley Inc v Bentley
Laboratories Inc (Fed Cir 1986) 782 F 2d 992 993
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 11
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
16A Wright & Miller Federal Practice & Procedure
(1999) § 3954 pp 295 296) it was effectively
reviewable by way of a motion in the Court of Appeals
(Fed Rules App Proc rule 8(a)(2)(A)(n) 28 U S C
Shiley Inc at p 993 see e g Matter of Miranne (5th
Cir 1988) 852 F 2d 805 )
Thus the federal courts denial of an injunction
pending appeal was collateral estoppel it conclusively
adjudicated the issue of the balance of harms in favor of
the City
C Laches
Valley contends a preliminary injunction was barred by
laches [L]aches is an equitable defense to the
enforcement of a stale claim and requires a showing of
unreasonable delay plus either the plaintiffs
acquiescence in the act complamed of or prejudice to
the defendant resulting from the delay [Citation] ]
(Peoplev Koontz (2002) 27 Cal 4th 1041 1087 1088)
'Generally a trial court s laches ruling will be sustained
on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support the
ruling [Citation ] ' (Johnson v City of Loma Linda
(2000) 24 Cal 4th 61 67)
A delay in bnngmg suit will be excused where there
exists an actual and substantial impediment thereto
[Citation]] (Lubin v Lubin (1956) 144 Cal App 2d
781 794 ) Here the City had a cast iron excuse for the
supposed delay the federal court had enjoined it from
compelling Valley to remove the billboards Valley
suggests that the City should have filed a counterclaim
for removal of the billboards in the federal action and
that its failure to do so constituted unreasonable delay
The City however was actively defending the federal
action Valley could not possibly have been under any
illusion that the City was somehow acquiescing in the
existence of the billboards Unless and until the federal
injunction was lifted there was no ieason for the City
to do anything more At a minimum, the trial court
could so find
D The Scope of the Preliminary Injunction
*13 The City contends the trial court erred by granting
an injunction that merely prohibited Valley from
displaying commercial advertising on the billboards It
clamis it was entitled to an injunction that would have
required Valley to remove the billboards (except for the
foundations as the City is still subject to the federal
court s injunction prohibiting it from requiring the
removal of the foundations)
The trial court found that the City had shown a
likelihood of success on the merits based on collateral
estoppel As we held in part III A ante we agree It
nevertheless refused to require removal of the
billboards due to what it called "the possibility
however remote ' that the Ninth Circuit might yet
reverse the federal judgment It is not clear whether it
believed this affected the likelihood of success on the
merits the balance of harms or both
As we also held in part III A ante the possibility that
the federal judgment might be reversed on appeal was
irrelevant to the likelihood of success on the merits
Under federal law the federal judgment was final and
entitled to full collateral estoppel effect Moreover as
we held in part III B ante the federal courts ruling that
the balance of harms favored the City was likewise final
and entitled to full collateral estoppel effect The trial
court was not free to redetermine this issue
To the extent that the trial court did redetermine the
balance of harms issue it erred The City wanted an
injunction to prevent the harm to the public interest that
results from the construction of a sign or any other
structure without a permit An injunction leavmg the
billboards in place while prohibiting Valley from
displaying commercial advertising on them, in no way
lessened this harm On the other hand the harm Valley
claimed it would suffer from an injunction was that it
could not display any advertising to the detriment of its
First Amendment rights as well as its finances An
injunction prohibiting commercial advertising did not
significantly lessen this harm
We also note that although the trial court purported to
rely on the federal judgment the federal judgment
© 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt WorksNot Reported in Cal Rptr 3d
Page 12
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist )
Not Officially Published
(Cal Rules of Court, Rules 976, 977)
(Cite as 2005 VVL 2233617 (Cal App 4 Dist ))
determined that the City was entitled to remove the
billboards it in no way determined that the City was
entitled to prohibit Valley from displaying commercial
advertising on them The whole thrust of the federal
court s ruling was that the permit requirement was a
content neutral rule of general application hence
penalizing Valley for failing to comply with it did not
violate the First Amendment By contrast an injunction
prohibiting Valley from displaying commercial
advertising is content based and does single out Valley
for peculiar treatment The trial court s injunction raised
substantial First Amendment issues that the federal
judgment had in no way resolved
Valley argues that a higher standard of review applies
to a mandatory preliminary injunction Of course the
injunction the trial court actually issued was a
prohibitory injunction The injunction the City was
seeking however was a mandatory injunction
(Kettenhofen v Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal 2d 189
191 [injunction requiring removal of fence] )
*14 " " [A] preliminary mandatory injunction is
rarely granted and is subject to stricter review on
appeal' [Citation] ] The grantmg of a mandatory
injunction pending trial is not permitted except in
extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly
established' [Citation] ] [Citation ] (Teachers Ins &
Annuity Ass in v Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal App 4th 1487
1493 quoting Shoemaker v County of Los Angeles
(1995) 37 Cal App 4th 618 625 quoting Board of
Supervisors v McMahon (1990) 219 Cal App 3d 286
295) The City however established its likelihood of
success on the merits as a matter of law It likewise
established that the balance of harms was in its favor as
a matter of law Thus even under this higher standard
the City was entitled to the injunction it was seeking
The usual vice of a mandatory injunction is that the
plaintiff obtain[s] by the order the complete relief
which he had sought in the action itself The injunction
d[oes] not tend to maintain the status quo but to coerce
the defendant into performing an act in advance of trial
which upon trial might not have been decreed ' (Fretz
v Burke (1967) 247 Cal App 2d 741 746) Here
however the City has already fully litigated an action to
judgment in which it was found to be entitled to require
removal of the billboards Indeed at one point the
federal court itself issued a permanent injunction
requiring removal of the billboards later it dissolved it
but only because the City had not filed a
cross complaint for injunctive relief not because the
City was not entitled to it Thus the policies militating
against a mandatory injunction do not apply
We conclude that the City was entitled to an injunction
requiring Valley to remove the billboards (except the
foundations) By granting a different and lesser
injunction the trial court erred We will reverse and we
will remand with directions to issue the injunction the
City was seeking
IV
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is reversed On remand the
trial court is directed to issue a preliminary injunction
requiring Valley within 30 days from the date of the
issuance of our remittitur to remove all portions of the
billboards other than the foundations The trial court
shall do so with no further hearing except that on a
suitable motion or other application and for good cause
shown it may shorten or extend this 30 day period
Howevei if either the federal court s judgment or its
order concerning an injunction pending appeal is
reversed modified or vacated these directions shall
not be binding and instead the trial court shall conduct
any further proceedings in accordance with any relevant
final federal judgment or order then in effect as well as
with the views expressed in this opinion The City is
awarded costs on appeal against Valley
We concur HOLLENHORST Acting P J and
GAUT J
Not Reported in Cal Rptr 3d 2005 WL 2233617
(Cal App 4 Dist ) Not Officially Published (Cal Rules
of Court Rules 976 977)
END OF DOCUMENT
C 2005 Thomson/West No Claim to Ong U S Govt Works