City Council Meeting 2-10-04 Santa Monica, California

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Staff

SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to City Policy and Ordinance on Over-the-Street Banners

Introduction

Last year, staff proposed revisions to the over-the-street banner ordinance. Council considered the proposal and directed staff to return with any additional information and options. This report fulfills that direction.

Background

Municipal Code Section 4.08.490 imposes a general prohibition against banners hung over city streets. Section 4.08.500 creates an exception for banners promoting civic and cultural events of general public interest. That section explicitly prohibits banners promoting “commercial sales or activities, religious services or restrictions, or events relating to political events or ballot measures.”

In 2001, the City Council adopted a new sign code. It restricts signage in order to promote traffic safety and aesthetics and to eliminate visual blight. The present over-the-street banner ordinance may be inconsistent with these policies. Moreover, in 2002, a lawsuit was filed challenging the street banner ordinance on constitutional grounds. That lawsuit remains ongoing.

Discussion

Since proposing amendments to the over-the-street banner ordinance last year, staff has reviewed evolving legal precedent and the options for amending the banner ordinance. Several possibilities have been identified.

First, the Council could amend Section 4.08.500 to prohibit over-the-street banners except banners hung by the City, the Pier Restoration Corporation (PRC) and the Bayside District Corporation (BDC) over the Third Street Promenade and the Santa Monica Pier. This approach would comport with the City’s sign policies favoring the promotion of safety and aesthetics on City streets by the reduction of offsite signage and visual clutter. This alternative would also eliminate any controversy about whether restrictions on banners based on content violate First Amendment guarantees. Finally, allowing “City” banners on the Promenade and Pier would protect the BDC’s and PRC’s ability to fulfill their mission of preserving economic vitality and would not hinder safety or aesthetics on streets used for vehicular traffic.

Second, the Council could amend the ordinance by narrowing the exception to the promotion of activities and events produced or co-produced by the City. This approach would benefit the public by allowing the advertisement of events and activities produced or co-produced by the City, the BDC and the PRC. This approach would also minimize visual clutter. Finally, it would insulate the City against legal claims by following case law which recognizes the government’s right to use its own property to publicize governmental activities.

Third, the City might modify the exception to allow street banners advertising permitted community events, including City events. This approach would not address visual clutter because the number of banners would likely not decrease. Nor would this approach afford the same legal protection of the first two approaches. However, it would facilitate the provision of information about events to the community.

Finally, the City Council could take no action and maintain the street banner ordinance in its present form. This course exposes the City to legal risk and conflicts with policies embodied in the sign ordinance.

Staff recommends that the Council choose the first or second option. Ordinances implementing both are attached as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively. Either would comport with existing City policies on signage by enhancing aesthetics and would insulate the City legally. Moreover, the effective date of the new ordinance could be chosen to reduce hardship to organizations that are counting on using banners to publicize events occurring in the near future.

Financial/Budget Impact

The recommended Municipal Code amendments would have no direct financial impacts upon the City.

Recommendation

If the Council selects the first option, the proposed ordinance submitted as Attachment “A” may be introduced for first reading. If the Council prefers the second option, the ordinance submitted as Attachment “B” may be introduced for first reading.

PREPARED BY: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance A
Proposed Ordinance B