Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

December 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin find that their billboard was legally permitted. The D'Egidios argued that § 5270 of California's Outdoor Advertising Act (the "Act") preempted any county code regulating billboards. Section 5270 provides in relevant part that the Act "shall be exclusive of all other regulations for the placing of advertising displays within view of the public highways of [California] in unincorporated areas . ." The D'Egidios argued that the Act therefore precluded application of county or city billboard ordinances with respect to a billboard (such as theirs) that was placed in an area that was unincorporated at the time of its placement. The City filed a cross -compliant, alleging that the billboard was not lawfully erected under the Act and the County Code in effect in 1987, and therefore could not be deemed a legal nonconforming use. The City contended that the Act did not preempt local government regula- tions regarding billboards and that the undisputed evidence showed that the D'Egidios' billboard did not comply with the County Code when its Ilse was modified in 1987 from a subdivision sales sign to an outdoor advertising sign. The City argued that because the D'Egidios' billboard was not lawfully erected, it was unlawful under the City's municipal code and therefore must be removed. The trial court agreed with the City. Finding no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court is- sued summary judgment in favor of the City. The court ordered that the D'Egidios were permanently enjoined and prohibited from maintaining the billboard on their property. The D'Egidios appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California, also agreed with the City's arguments and concluded that the D'Egidios' billboard was not lawfully erected and was therefore unlawful under the City's municipal code. In so concluding, the court held that § 5270 of the Act, despite its "exclusivity" language, does not preempt local regulationsthat are more restrictive than the Act and does not preclude the application of local ordinances to billboards that were erected in unincorporated areas. In reaching that holding, the court noted that there were several other provisions (see §§ 5229, 5230; 5231, 5366) of the Act that "expressly allow, or contemplate, the enactment and enforcement by counties and/or cities of local regulations affecting the placing of advertising displays." "Given th[ose] provisions of the Act —which make no distinction between billboards in incorporated areas and in unincorpo- rated areas," the court determined that it "seems clear that the Legisla- ture did not intend that section 5270 would preclude the application of all local ordinances to billboards in unincorporated areas." Looking at © 2016 Thomson Reuters 6