HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 OUTDR ADVERTSNG 8-4-80DATE:
August 4, 1980
OLD BUSINESS
No. 1
8-4~80
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Michael W. Brotemarkle, Community Development Director
Outdoor Advertising Structures
SB 462 (Dills) which requires cities fo compensate companies for the removal of
billboard advertising structures.was vetoed by Governor Brown. If is anticipated
fhaf the necessary legislative override fo fhaf veto will not be forthcoming;
however, the City should inform legislators that a "no" is requested if such an
override attempt is made.
The action by the Governor would ~llow the Council fo take positive action on
the City Attorney's memo of July 1, 1980 which recommended to file complaints
in civil actions for the abatement of billboards as a public nuisance and seek
a preliminary injunction to enjoin any further improvements, modifications, efc.
of existing billboards pending trial of the case in chief.
MWB: mm
DATE:
July 1, 1980
NEW BUSINESS
7/21/80
Inter-Corn
FROM:
SUBJECT:
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND }~MBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JAMES G. ROURKE, CITY ATTORNEY
DANIEL K. SPRADLIN, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
REGULATION OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURES AND
THE REMOVAL THEREOF - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
Background
On May 8, 1980, the City Building Official, George Reid, directed
a letter to the president of Foster & Kleiser informing them that
the existence of their billboards in the City was in violation of
City Ordinance No. 684. The letter also advised Foster & Kleiser
that proceedings would be instituted under the Uniform Code for
the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to terminate their existence
in the City. Subsequently we were informed of Mr. Reid's actions,
and after review and consultation with Mr. Reid, we concluded
that the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is
not applicable in terminating the use of billboards in the City.
On June 11, 1980, at the request of representatives of Foster &
Kleiser, Mr. Reid and Mr. Spradlin of this office met with Mr.
David H. Frederickson, Assistant General Counsel of Metromedia,
and Mr. Edward Dato, Public Relations Manager of Foster & Kleiser.
Mr. Spradlin informed Mr. Frederickson and Mr. Dato that abatement
proceedings under the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings would not be continued. However, Mr. Spradlin did inform
Mr. Frederickson and Mr. Dato as representatives of Foster &
Kleiser that the existence of the billboards in the City of Tustin
was in violation of the City Code and that criminal or civil
proceedings could be instituted immediately to terminate their use.
After informing Mr. Frederickson and Mr. Dato that a final decision
had not yet been arrived as to which procedure to follow, Mr.
Spradlin invited any reasonable offer on the part of Foster &
Kleiser to settle the matter short of litigation. Foster & Kleiser
requested that any action be delayed until June, 1981 when, in
their opinion, a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States
may have been rendered in reference to the Court's review of the
California supreme Court decision in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of
San Diego. (This case has been discussed in our previous Inter-Coms
on this subject.) In the meantime, Foster & Kleiser are not
willing to submit to the regulations imposed under the Tustin City
Code for approval of sign copy or to restrict their repairs and
improvements of said signs. Foster & Kleiser is willing to refrain
Inter-Com
Page Two
July 1, 1980
from placing any copy on the back side of the billboard presently
vacant on the corner of Main and Newport Avenue and would be
willing to enter into a stipulation at this time that in the event
Metromedia v. City of San Diego is affirmed by the United States.
Supreme Court, Foster & Kleiser would not challenge the
constitutionality of the Tustin ordinance but would retain the
right to question the amount of compensation which the City
must pay in terminating the use of billboards in the City.
It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office~that Foster &
.Kleiser is not willing to enter into good faith negotiations
with the City at this time with reference to terminating their
use of billboards in the City of Tustin. We believe that Foster
& Kleiser will, regardless of the outcome of their appeal before
the United States Supreme Court, engage in every activity that
they can to prolong the use of their billboards in the City of
Tustin and to protract the course of any litigation which might
be instituted to terminate such use. We believe that in keeping
with the Council's directions we should move forward at this
time to terminate the use of outdoor advertising structures in
the City and that the appropriate procedure would be to file
complaints in civil actions for the abatement of public nuisances.
In addition, a preliminary injunction could be sought to enjoin
any further improvements, modifications, etc. of the existing
signs pending the trial of the case in chief.
DKS:lw:D:6/18/80
DKS:cs:R:7/01/80
DKS:cs:R:7/07/80