Court upholds S.F. outdoor ad rules

Justices turn down challenge to law restricting off-premises advertising

San Francisco’s restrictions on outdoor advertising signs, permitting the signs only where advertisers conduct business, were left intact Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a challenge by business groups.

The city ordinance was challenged by Contest Promotions, a company that runs raffles for prizes such as movie and concert tickets and leases space for signs in local stores where the raffle tickets are sold. Those displays were banned by the most recent version of the ordinance, enacted in 2014, which allowed commercial ad signs only for the “primary business” on the premises.

City voters had approved an earlier, somewhat less restrictive version in 2002, primarily aimed at billboards. While both measures banned new off-site advertising signs, they allowed those already in place to remain.

In a 2015 lawsuit, Contest Promotions argued that the ordinance was discriminatory and violated free speech. The company cited a Supreme Court ruling, also in 2015, that found an Arizona town violated freedom of speech by setting tighter limits on signs that advertise local church services than on signs that carry political or ideological messages.

But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed Contest

Promotions’ suit, saying the Supreme Court ruling in the Arizona case did not involve commercial speech, which has been granted lesser constitutional protection than noncommercial expression and is subject to more government regulation.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Illston’s decision last August, citing its previous rulings that allowed cities to ban commercial billboards and other off-site advertising in order to promote “safety and aesthetics.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a business-supported property-rights group in Sacramento, and similar organizations in Arizona and Georgia urged the Supreme Court to take up the Contest Promotions case and apply its 2015 ruling to commercial advertising. The company, in its appeal, argued that San Francisco’s ban on off-site advertising had no logical relationship to aesthetics or traffic safety.

“There is no reason to believe off-premises signs are uglier, or more distracting to motorists, than on-premises signs,” said the company’s lawyers.

San Francisco, in its court filing, said city officials had concluded in 2002, when the first ordinance was passed, that additional commercial billboards could “distract motorists and pedestrians” and “contribute to blight and visual clutter.” The city also said the Supreme Court had upheld San Diego’s ban on off-site commercial advertising in 1981, though Contest Promotions said the two laws were different.

The high court denied review Tuesday without comment.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the court’s action “upholds what San Franciscans voted for in 2002, affirming their right to have a say on the billboards that appear in their city.”

Representatives of Contest Promotions declined to comment.