BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1470|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1470
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 5/11/10
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 5-3, 4/15/10
AYES: Lowenthal, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Pavley, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Ashburn, Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 4/20/10
AYES: Corbett, Hancock, Leno
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Outdoor advertising
SOURCE : Los Angeles City Attorneys Office
DIGEST : This bill makes more precise the definition of
lawfully erected signs and provides that a civil action may
be taken against the owner of an unlawfully erected sign
for the disgorgement of revenues and for civil penalties
not to exceed $2,500 for each day a sign is not lawfully
erected or that is in violation of any state law, local
ordinance, or local building permit requirement.
ANALYSIS : The Outdoor Advertising Act (OAA) regulates
CONTINUED
SB 1470
Page
2
the placement of advertising displays adjacent to and
within 660 feet of interstate or primary highways. The OAA
regulates the size, illumination, orientation, and location
of advertising displays and, with some exceptions,
specifically prohibits any advertising display from being
placed or maintained on property adjacent to a section of
highway that has been landscaped.
The OAA defines lawfully erected signs as advertising
displays that were erected in compliance with state laws
and local ordinances in effect at the time of their
erection or that were not erected in compliance but have
subsequently been modified to become so. Signs that are
not lawfully erected include those erected in a way that
did not meet the laws, ordinances, or regulations governing
advertising displays at the time the display was erected or
signs whose "use" was subsequently altered in a way that
causes the display not to meet those laws currently.
Advertising displays that were not lawfully erected are
deemed to be lawful if a government entity did not provide
written notice to the sign owner that the display was
unlawful within five years of the display being erected.
This provision of law is known as a "rebuttable
presumption." Under existing law, an entity ordering the
removal of a sign that was, at one time, unlawfully erected
but under the rebuttable presumption is considered lawful,
is required to pay the sign owner just compensation for the
removal of the display.
As a general principle, entities that require the removal
of any advertising display anywhere in the state (not just
within 660 feet of the highway) that was lawfully erected,
including those deemed lawful under the rebuttable
presumption, are required to pay the sign owner just
compensation to do so. This is true even if a display is
nonconforming. Nonconforming signs, as opposed to unlawful
signs, are those that were erected in conformance with the
laws or regulations in effect at the time the display was
erected but that do not meet the laws or regulations
currently in place because of a change in law, ordinance,
or regulation.
Upon the erection or alteration of a sign, an owner must
SB 1470
Page
3
obtain a building permit. If a display does not have a
valid, unrevoked, or unexpired permit, the following
penalties shall be assessed:
1.$100 for an advertising display that is placed in a
location permitted by law.
2.$10,000 for an advertising display that is placed in a
location not permitted by law or local ordinances and is
not removed within 30 days of written notice from the
entity with jurisdiction over the property upon which the
display is located, plus $100 for each day the
advertising display remains in place after the 30 days
lapse.
Existing law also provides for the disgorgement of gross
revenues that are received by or owed to a sign owner for
an unauthorized advertising display.
This bill:
1.Adds precision to the definition of "lawfully erected" in
the following ways:
A. Specifying that changes to a sign's "height,"
"orientation," "size," and "technology" may cause a
sign to become unlawful.
B. Specifying that a sign that is brought into
compliance with existing laws must be "maintained
in" compliance in order to be deemed lawfully
erected.
C. Specifying that a sign must meet its building
permit requirements in order to be considered
lawfully erected.
2.Permits the Attorney General, any district attorney,
county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor to
bring a civil action against an owner whose sign is
unlawfully erected or in violation of any state law,
local ordinance or local building permit requirement for
the disgorgement of revenues the sign owner collected
while the sign was either not lawfully erected or in
SB 1470
Page
4
violation of any state law, local ordinance or local
building permit requirement, even if the sign was
subsequently brought into compliance, and makes the sign
owner liable for civil penalties not to exceed $2,500 for
each violation of any state law, local ordinance, or
building permit requirement for each day the sign is in
violation.
3.Identifies how the monies collected through successful
enforcement actions shall be distributed.
4.Specifies that the penalties established by the bill
shall be in addition to any criminal, civil, or other
legal remedy established by law and provides that an
agency bringing an enforcement action against a sign
owner may request the court to award the agency its
enforcement costs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/10)
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office (source)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
City and County of San Francisco
Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight
Consumer Federation of California
League of California Cities
San Francisco Beautiful
Scenic America
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/10)
CBS Outdoor
Regency Outdoor Advertising
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
the proliferation of illegal outdoor advertising where sign
owners have erected new signs or modified existing signs
without the proper permit and in violation of laws in
effect at the time has gone unchecked for too long.
California cities have limited compliance and inspection
resources and many, including the City of Los Angeles and
SB 1470
Page
5
the City of San Francisco, utilize the citizen complaint
process for code enforcement. The City of San Francisco
has only three inspectors searching the city for sign
compliance and the City of Los Angeles has six sign
inspectors for a city that contains 468 square miles and
10,000 outdoor advertising displays.
The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, the sponsor of this
bill, asserts that current law, by requiring payment of
just compensation if a government entity requires removal
of a sign, protects sign owners who did not erect their
signs in accordance with state and local laws in effect at
the time of their erection or who subsequently modified
their signs in violation of their building permit.
Furthermore, because existing law allows signs that are out
of compliance with permit requirements to be brought back
into compliance, existing law encourages sign companies to
ignore existing codes to maximize profit knowing that the
best a governmental entity can do is force them to bring
the sign into compliance with the code.
The author's office argues that there is a need to ensure
that laws protecting the visual landscape can be enforced
in a manner that will dissuade sign companies from failing
to comply with permitting requirements that exist to
protect the public from unsafe and unfair construction.
By narrowing the definition of "lawfully erected" and
establishing civil remedies, this bill provides a stronger
disincentive from erecting or altering a sign in a manner
that causes it be illegal. In doing so, this bill will
help to protect the visual integrity of communities.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : CBS Outdoor raises concerns
about the bill's revision to the definition of lawfully
erected stating, "Most of the current display owners
obtained ownership of their displays through acquisition.
It is typical for a display to have transferred ownership
several times since its erection and historic documentation
of the display is sometimes incomplete due to multiple
acquisitions and/or transfers. Also, many displays were
erected several decades ago, during a time when local
municipalities did not maintain accurate and complete
SB 1470
Page
6
permit records. It is difficult to see what interest could
possible justify the stripping of (the right to just
compensation) simply because a decades old building permit
has been inadvertently lost, damaged, and/or destroyed, in
most cases, by someone other than the current display
owner.."
JJA:do 5/24/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****