Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

February 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin the municipal code to establish an off -site sign periodic inspection fee and an inspection program. Litigation over the inspection program and sign fee ordinance ensued. Eventu- ally, in September 2006, the City entered a settlement agreement with CBS Out- door Inc. and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (the "Billboard Companies ") (the "Settlement Agreement "). Among other things, the Settlement Agreement granted the Billboard Companies exemption from the City's 2002 sign ban, the off -site sign inspection program, and numerous other zoning and building laws 1 regulating signs in the City. The Settlement Agreement also required the City to issue new permits to allow the Billboard Companies to modernize up to 840 of F' their off -site signs without having to comply with at least 10 separate City laws in undertaking the modernizations. This latter provision of the Settlement Agree- ment allowed the Billboard Companies to, among other things, convert existing static, wood, and vinyl signs to LED digital displays, even though a municipal ordinance expressly prohibited "alterations or enlargements" of such signs. A third billboard company, which was not part of the Settlement Agreement, Summit Media LLC ( "Summit "), challenged the Settlement Agreement by filing a lawsuit for a writ of mandate. It asked the superior court to order the City to set aside the Settlement Agreement and withdraw all permits issued under it. It contended that the Settlement Agreement was ultra vires (i.e., beyond the pow- ers of the city) and void. Additionally, it contended that because the Settlement Agreement was void, any permits issued under it should be revoked. The superior court agreed that the Settlement Agreement was illegal and void because it allowed the alteration of billboards in violation of municipal ordinances. However, the court declined to revoke the permits that had been is- sued pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The court concluded that permit re- � vocation was an administrative issue for determination on an individual basis. The Billboard Companies appealed, and Summit cross- appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California, agreed that the Settlement Agreement exempting the Billboard Companies from billboard regulations was ultra vires (i.e., "beyond the powers" of the City) and void. The court also held that the permits issued to the Billboard Companies pursuant to the Settlement Agreement were void. The court explained that "land use regulations involve the exercise of police power, and `the government may not contract away its right to exercise the po- lice power in the future.' " Thus, even agreements by the government that promise zoning laws thereafter enacted will not be applicable to a particular tract of land or party are invalid and unenforceable as contrary to public policy, said the court. The Billboard Companies had argued that the Settlement Agreement was not a surrender of the City's police power. They had contended that, so long as the Settlement Agreement reserved the City's right to enact new laws in the future and apply them to the settling party (here, the Billboard Companies), the City had not "surrender[ed] its control over its police power." In other words, they argued that an agreement by a city is not ultra vires, so long as it does not "contractually exempt a private property from all future legislative and regula- tory control." The court rejected that argument, concluding that it was "simply 8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters