Court Declines to Clamp Lid on Signs Along Ventura Blvd.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge dealt a setback Thursday to an Encino homeowners’ group seeking to control the height of signs along Ventura Boulevard.

Judge Norman L. Epstein denied a preliminary injunction sought by Homeowners of Encino that would have prevented the erection of signs exceeding the height allowed for buildings. The homeowners contend that signs and billboards should be forced to comply with the same restrictions that govern businesses.

Although denying the injunction, Epstein ruled that the group could refile its motion after interviewing Los Angeles city officials to determine whether the City Council and the Planning Department intended to include signs in height limits along the boulevard. If granted, the injunction would prevent the city from issuing permits for any more signs exceeding those limits until the matter were resolved in trial.

Plan Adopted in 1980

The Encino Specific Plan, a planning document adopted by the City Council in 1980, restricts the height of structures--it did not specify whether “structures” included signs--along Ventura to three and six stories, depending on the location. Homeowners of Encino has cited three completed billboards and one under construction that exceed those restrictions and has sued the city to force their removal.

Deputy City Atty. Sharon Siedorf has argued, however, that the municipal code specifically exempts rooftop signs from the height limits that govern structures.

Attorneys for Homeowners of Encino maintain that city officials originally intended that the structural height limits in the specific plan apply to signs and that the plan should supersede the city’s general zoning laws.

The plan originally contained a section governing all signs along Ventura, but the sign section was deleted by the city Planning Commission in 1979 under pressure from merchants and the sign industry. The City Council adopted the Encino Specific Plan in 1980 without a sign section.

Revised Ordinance

The commission instructed the Planning Department staff to restudy the sign provisions and come back with a less restrictive proposal. A revised sign ordinance was unveiled last year by the Planning Department and is undergoing public hearings. Although less stringent than the original proposal, the new measure would place strong limits on the number, height, size and placement of signs and would require the removal of 40% of existing signs along Ventura.

The issue before the court apparently rides on the memory of city officials who were involved in drafting the Encino Specific Plan. One of them is Frank Fielding, a hearing examiner for the Planning Commission, who recalled in a sworn declaration that the decision to delete the sign section from the specific plan meant that signs were not to be regulated by building height restrictions along Ventura.

The suit by Homeowners of Encino places the city in an awkward position. Although the city attorney’s office is defending the city in the suit, some city officials have taken the side of the homeowners.

City Councilman Marvin Braude, who represents Encino, said he and the ad hoc community group that helped draft the Encino Specific Plan intended the height limits in the specific plan to apply to signs.

City Planning Director Calvin S. Hamilton told The Times before Thursday’s hearing that he concurred with Braude’s interpretation of the intent of the specific plan. However, because there was some question as to whether city officials could testify against the city in the matter, the homeowners’ attorneys had not taken a sworn declaration from Hamilton.

Judge Epstein suggested that the group get Hamilton’s statement before filing a new injunction motion.

Leaders in the nonprofit group, saying they had little money for legal fees, said Thursday they did not know when or if they would make another attempt to get an injunction.