§ 9-37.010. Findings and Intent of Chapter

Regulations established by this Chapter are intended to appropriately regulate the placement, type, size, and number of signs allowed within the City, and to require the proper maintenance of signs in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. In order to further these purposes, the City finds and determines that these regulations are necessary in order to:

A.

Avoid traffic hazards to motorists and pedestrians caused by visual distractions and obstructions by insuring that official traffic regulation devices can be easily seen, that adequate sight distance is maintained, and that visual impacts are limited to reduce hazards, by prohibiting nearby visual obstructions such as moving, rotating or blinking signs, an excessive number of signs, an excessive amount of copy-on signs or signs resembling official signs, and by prohibiting signs in the public right-of-way;

B.

Promote the aesthetic and environmental values of the community by providing for signs that do not impair the attractiveness of the City, prohibiting the visual clutter of obtrusive signs, and prohibiting signs in the public right-of-way;

C.

Provide for signs as an effective channel of communications, while ensuring that signs are aesthetically proportioned in relation to adjacent structures and the structures to which they are attached;

D.

Regulate commercial signage based upon the City's determination that such signage constitutes the majority of existing signs and that the City desires to regulate and allow such signage in such a manner that allows for reasonable and equitable identification of businesses and properties, while providing a channel of communication to advertise businesses in the commercial and industrial zones of the City, and maintaining the residential character of the City's residential zones;

E.

Regulate based upon the City's compelling interest in maintaining the residential character of such zones, in order to provide that a residential use with a home occupation shall be considered a residential use and no commercial signs, other than commercial signs placed by charitable organizations, may be displayed;

F.

Regulate based upon the City's compelling interest in ensuring traffic safety, in order to provide that ancillary signs are permitted in order to directly advance that interest, subject to the maximum number set forth in this Development Code; and

G.

Prohibit the placement of signs in the public right-of-way based upon the following:

Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, the City of Simi Valley has permitted temporary signs in the public right-of-way, which has resulted in substantial unsightly conditions, as illustrated in evidence presented to the City Council during its consideration of this ordinance.

The placement and accumulation of temporary signs in the public right-of-way, on traffic and utility devices, upon public sidewalks or on public easements presents dangerous conditions to the free and safe flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Such areas must be preserved for official traffic signs and official utility notices in order to assure the safe flow of traffic.

In addition, in upholding prohibitions against the posting of signs on sidewalks, utility poles and other public property, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) , said that "The problem addressed by this ordinance - the visual assault on the citizens of Los Angeles presented by an accumulation of signs posted on public property - constitutes a significant substantive evil within the City's power to prohibit. "[T]he City's interest in attempting to preserve [or improve] the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect." Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S., at 71. " The Vincent Court also observed that temporary signs could still be allowed on private property, noting that, "Moreover, by not extending the ban to all locations, a significant opportunity to communicate by means of temporary signs is preserved, and private property owners' esthetic concerns will keep the posting of signs on their property within reasonable bounds. Even if some visual blight remains, a partial, content-neutral ban may nevertheless enhance the City's appearance."

H.

Regulate signs for charitable organizations by permitting them to be located on private property and for a sufficient duration, in order to promote charitable events and activities based upon the City's substantial interest in supporting such events and activities because of the community services they support and based upon the following:

The temporary sign ordinance, which prohibits signs on public property and in the public right-of-way, and otherwise limits the number and duration of temporary commercial signs on private property, directly advances the City's substantial governmental interests and concerns regarding aesthetics by reducing the visual blight created by the proliferation of temporary commercial signs without burdening an excessive amount of speech.

The sign ordinance is narrowly tailored because it does not over-regulate protected speech. It restricts the duration, size, and location of temporary commercial signs, other than signs placed by charitable organizations. Also, with the limited exception of charitable commercial signs, the ordinance prohibits commercial signs in residential zones, in order to advance the City's compelling interest in maintaining the residential character of such zones. Commercial enterprises still have the ability to advertise, contact and communicate with consumers in other ways; such as direct mail, newspaper, radio, television and on-site advertising.

The general principle that the First Amendment forbids the government from regulating speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others is not applicable here because the City's regulations are neutral or even silent concerning any speaker's point of view. Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) 466 U.S. 787.

Content-based regulations which disadvantage commercial speech are subject to a lesser degree of First Amendment protection as provided in the U.S. Supreme Court case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of N.Y. 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980).

Central Hudson established a three-part test for First Amendment challenges to regulations restricting nonmisleading commercial speech that relates to lawful activity. First, the government must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by the regulation. Second, the regulation must directly advance that governmental interest. Third, although the regulation need not be the least restrictive measure available, it must be narrowly tailored so as not to restrict more speech than necessary. Together, these final two factors require that there be a reasonable fit between the government's objectives and the means it chooses to accomplish those ends.

The government bears the burden of asserting one or more substantial governmental interests and demonstrating a reasonable fit between those interests and the challenged regulation. The government is not limited in the evidence it may use to meet its burden.

Unlike the ban in City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993), which only applied to 62 of the 1,500 to 2,000 news racks in the City, addressing only a "minute" and "paltry" share of the problem, the City of Simi Valley's limitation of allowing one temporary onsite commercial sign, by permit for four 30 day periods per year, applies to all of the approximately 7,500 businesses in Simi Valley which have obtained business licenses and will substantially reduce the number of temporary commercial signs from what has previously been allowed in the City. Charitable signs, without such numerical or permit requirements, may also be placed on private property with permission of the property owner, however, based upon historical experience in the City, the number of charitable organizations and events, and thus the potential for placement of their signs, are limited in number. Moreover, eliminating commercial signs from residential neighborhoods, except for charitable commercial signs, will substantially advance the City's interests in aesthetics and maintaining the residential character of residential neighborhoods. In addition the City is going no further than necessary to achieve its regulatory objective in that the distinctions between commercial signs has been structured to be based upon broad categories (i.e., signs placed by charitable organizations promoting charitable events and activities) as opposed to the specific content or point of view of the organization or enterprise.

The government may be said to advance its purpose by substantially reducing sign proliferation, even where it is not totally eradicated. Evidence presented to the City Council during its consideration of the adoption of this ordinance provided examples of sign proliferation in the City. A limitation on temporary sign display is directly related to the objective of aesthetics. The Simi Valley City Council desires to allow a greater number of temporary charitable commercial signs because of their unique value to the community.

The City has a substantial governmental interest in permitting nonprofit organizations that are raising funds for charitable events that support social services in the community to have their signs in place for an amount of time sufficient to promote their event. This is necessary because most of these charitable organizations, unlike most commercial businesses, have no fixed location where they can place signs upon their property advertising their events, thus furthering the necessity for signage display.

The temporary sign ordinance does not hinder any business's ability to advertise its business by other means such as additional window signs, newspaper, direct mail or other forms of advertising, in addition to permitted onsite temporary signs. There is a distinction drawn in the ordinance between the signs of sellers of goods or services and those placed by charitable organizations.

The United States Supreme Court held that "because charitable solicitation does more than inform private economic decisions and is not primarily concerned with providing information about the characteristics and costs of goods and services, it has not been dealt with as a variety of purely commercial speech." Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment 444 U.S. 620, 632 (1980) . See also Mainstream Marketing Services v. Federal Trade Commission [10th Circuit (2004)] .

Therefore, the City of Simi Valley has established a reasonable fit between the substantial interests which it advances and the regulation of the signs.

(§ 4, Ord. 1092, eff. July 6, 2006)