1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 9 the LED sign is also an "illuminated sign" as defIned in the Code, notwithstanding Clear Channel's assertion to the contrary. LEDs are a source of light that is anything but natural, and the display has "characters, letters, figures, designs or outlines" when in operation). Plaintiff also insists that it satisfies the external lighting requirement because the sign is not internally backlit and because the diodes are external to the sign. Exhibit B, Transcript at 14. Just because the LED sign is not internally backlit, however, does not mean that it is externally illuminated as the City Code has defined "external lighting." Plaintiff acknowledges that the LEDs sit on the surface of the sign face itself and that the light diodes are in fact the sign. Exhibit B, Transcript at 32, 36. In these circumstances, the LEDs are not "extemallight fixtures directed at the sign," as the Sign Code requires. Instead, they are light fIxtures located on the sign itself. Accordingly, the LED sign is not illuminated by external lighting and fails to satisfY the City's illumination standards.2 C. The Alteration of tbe Sign Witbont Obtaining a Sign Permit and the Continued Operation oftbe Sign Without a Sign Permit Violates the City's Sign Code The City does not permit the alteration of a sign without obtaining a sign permit. Section 1220.QJ of the Sign Code states that "[e]xcept for those signs listed in Section 1230.01, no permanent or temporary sign shall be erected, altered, reconstructed, maintained, Or moved in the City without obtaining a sign permit from the City." It is undisputed that none of the exceptions provided for in Section 1230.QJ apply to Plaintiff's billboards. It is also undisputed that Plaintiff failed to apply for a sign permit before installing the LED unit, and failed to obtain approval of its after-the-fact sign permit application. Finally, it cannot be denied that Plaintiff altered its sign. Although Plaintiff claims that its alteration was an improvement, not an expansion, that distinction is irrelevant for purposes of Section 1220.01, which requires a sign permit for all 2 Plaintiff also contends that the City does not have a rational basis for its illumination standards. To the contrary, the purpose of the City's regulations of signs in general, and the City's lighting regulations in particular, was to permit effective signage appropriate to the planned character of each sign district, promote an attractive environment, minimize adverse effects on nearby property, and protect the public health, safety and welfare. With respect to the external lighting requirement for District 7, an industrial district, the City examined the character of the neighborhood and the needs of the businesses in the district and concluded that the purpose of the signage in District 7 was not to attract the attention of customers, but to provide directional and locational infonnation. Accordingly, the City concluded that glaring signs and bright signs and signs designed to attract the attention of customers were inappropriate for the industrial character of the district. Because the brightest signs are those that are back lit or internally illuminated, the City prohibited such signs in District 7. Instead, the City required that signs in District 7 be externally lit.