City Council approves amended billboard ordinance after prolonged debate

The Los Angeles City Council voted 8-3 on June 5, 2001, to approve an amended package of billboard regulations known as item 28 (revised “28 d” and associated amendments), directing further enforcement work and setting conditions for any future trade-off program that would permit some freeway-facing signs in exchange for takedowns of other signs.

The ordinance matters because it changes how the city will address thousands of off-site signs that community groups and officials have long called blight, while attempting to create a mechanism to fund enforcement and to give the council leverage to require removals. Council supporters said the amendments strike a practical balance between immediate removal of the worst signs and creating enforceable mechanisms to prevent future blight.

Councilman Ridley-Thomas led the effort to move the revised package forward as a locally negotiated compromise after weeks of committee work. Key amended elements approved by the council include a directive that billboard companies produce documentation showing valid permits for all of their billboards as a condition of participating in any trade-off program; a proposal for a registration fee (to be developed by Building and Safety and reported back to committees) intended to fund enforcement; landscaping standards for any newly permitted billboard locations; and several requirements aimed at speeding identification and removal of noncompliant or defaced signs.

The council also accepted language asking the City Attorney and Building and Safety to request permits and related records from billboard operators and to report back. Under the amendment accepted by the council, companies would be ineligible to participate in the trade-off program if they do not produce valid permits and documentation that their existing signs conform with permit conditions.

Building and Safety chief Dave Keim told the council that department staff estimated that “as much as 40% of the existing off-site or billboard signs may have code violations,” and that the department has limited inspection staff to pursue violations. Keim and other officials testified that a registration fee could fund increased enforcement capacity.

Community groups and residents who opposed the ordinance urged a stronger prohibition and immediate takedowns, arguing that the city should not lift a long-standing practical ban on freeways without first removing illegal and deteriorated billboards within neighborhoods. Several speakers described thousands of allegedly illegal or nonconforming signs and called for a permanent moratorium. Industry and property-owner representatives said the trade-off approach is the only economically feasible way to produce meaningful takedowns.

The council voted first on a set of written and verbal amendments (often identified in the record as 28 d/28 e). A substitute motion that would have followed a different approach failed in a separate roll call (4–7). The main motion—item 28 as amended—passed on final passage by an 8–3 vote. The council also directed staff to continue the task force and to return to Planning and Land Use Management and budget committees with draft implementation details, including the fee proposal and lists of permitted signs.

Supporters said the measure gives Building and Safety more leverage and a funding path to enforce sign rules; opponents said the ordinance risks allowing new freeway-facing billboards and asked for stronger, immediate enforcement of illegal signs.

The council referred technical drafting to the City Attorney and asked for follow-up reports to the relevant committees.

Votes at a glance: Item 28 (billboard/sign ordinance, as amended) — Approved, 8–3. Key amendments: require billboard companies to produce valid permits for all locations to be eligible for any trade-off; direct a Building and Safety/City Attorney outreach and reporting requirement; require development of a registration fee to help fund enforcement; add landscaping standards for new billboard permits; preserve enforcement and ongoing task-force work. Implementation details and ordinance text to be drafted by city staff and the City Attorney for later review.

Ending: The council’s action moves the dispute from committee negotiations to a narrower set of implementation steps for Building and Safety and the City Attorney, while leaving significant policy and technical work—permit inventories, fee design and potential traffic/environmental studies—for follow-up committee review.