“Stunning,” “Outstanding,” “Design” Test for Sunset Strip Billboard Approval Contravenes First Amendment Rights

The amendments to the Sunset Specific Plan, known as the Amended Billboard Plan, aim to introduce new rules and guidelines designed to improve the management of billboards and tall walls along Sunset Boulevard. These changes focus on the distribution, size, location, and operation of new and modified signage, while also emphasizing the need for creative and contextual designs that are sensitive to neighboring land uses. A crucial aspect of this plan is the requirement for new off-site sign applications to undergo a rigorous design excellence screening process, overseen by the City Manager or their designee. To proceed with development agreements, applicants must first obtain concept awards through this screening mechanism, which is facilitated by the Design Excellence Screening Committee.

The evaluation of applications under the Amended Billboard Plan involves a scoring system based on ten detailed criteria as outlined in the Submission Guide. Each criterion is assigned specific point values, adding up to a total of 250 points, with a minimum average score of 225 required to secure a concept award. The criteria focus on various elements related to design quality, public art opportunities, architectural diversity, land-use outcomes, pedestrian experiences, and economic development, among others. While these criteria appear structured, they also invite concerns about their vagueness and subjectivity, which could lead to inconsistent evaluations by the Screening Committee.

One of the most glaring issues with the criteria is their inherent subjectivity, especially the first criterion which questions whether a design is “exceptional.” The guidelines for this criterion include terms such as “innovative,” “excellent,” and “beautiful,” all of which are open to individual interpretation. This ambiguity leaves evaluators with significant discretion to award scores based on personal assessments rather than clear, measurable factors. Critically, this lack of clarity impacts both applicants and evaluators alike, resulting in uncertainty about how specific designs can achieve high scores or be deemed acceptable under the guidelines.

Further complicating the evaluation process is the competitive nature of applications for limited concept awards. Each application is not only assessed on its own merits but also requires comparative evaluation against others. The process lacks transparency regarding who determines the scoring criteria and how they are weighted, leading to potential inconsistencies and arbitrary decision-making by the Screening Committee. This situation raises significant questions about due process and fair treatment, especially for those whose scores might be disproportionately affected by a single unfavorably subjective evaluation.

The City argues that the Amended Billboard Plan offers sufficient guidance and that it is more structured than frameworks deemed constitutional in prior legal cases. However, the court disagrees, highlighting the lack of specific, objective standards that could restrict the discretion of the licensing officials. It contrasts the Amended Billboard Plan with previous cases where clearer criteria were established, reinforcing the validity of the claim that the current framework does not adequately limit decision-making authority in a constitutionally permissible way.

In conclusion, the broad discretion inherent in the Amended Billboard Plan and its submission process creates multiple problems regarding clarity, consistency, and constitutional compliance, particularly concerning First Amendment rights. Given the vague criteria and unrestrained decision-making authority afforded to the Screening Committee, there is a compelling argument that the amendment risks infringing upon applicants’ rights and undermining due process, thereby necessitating a reevaluation of its structure and implementation to ensure adherence to constitutional standards.