Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 15, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 12 <br />Having found that Thun failed to meet the threshold requirement of <br />showing that the Ordinance went beyond preventing a real public harm <br />to producing an affiiniative benefit, the court concluded that Thun <br />failed to establish a regulatory takings claim and that his claim was <br />therefore properly dismissed. <br />See also: Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash. 2d 1, 829 P.2d 765 <br />(1992) (holding ordinance went beyond preventing public harm, and <br />unfairly allocated burden for public benefit on individual property <br />owners). <br />Case Note: <br />The City had also argued that Thun's regulatory takings claim was not ripe <br />for review because Thun had not received a final governmental decision <br />regarding the permitted uses of his property. The court determined that it <br />could waive the final governmental decision requirement of prudential <br />ripeness. <br />Billboard/Repair of damaged <br />structure —Advertising company <br />rebuilds nonconforming billboard <br />structure after its blown over in <br />windstorm <br />County says reconstructed billboard required <br />local authorization, but advertising company <br />claims reconstruction is exempt from local <br />regulation <br />Citation: Lamar Advertising Company v. County of Los Angeles, 22 <br />Cal. App. 5th 1294, 232 Cal. Rptr 3d 394 (2d Dist. 2018) <br />CALIFORNIA (05/08/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a billboard owner was entitled under California statutory law and/or lo- <br />cal permitting exceptions to reconstruct a nonconforming billboard <br />structure without local regulation after it was blown over in a <br />windstorm. <br />The Background/Facts: Lamar Advertising Company ("Lamar") <br />owned a billboard that was located alongside a freeway in Los Angeles <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />