Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 15, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 12 The County argued that because the entire advertising display fell over in the windstoiiu, the billboard was completely destroyed and its re -erection was a "placement." The OAA expressly recognizes local authorities' power to regulate the "placement" of a billboard (see §§ 5229, 5231). OAA section 5231 allows local authorities to require a permit for placement of a billboard. OAA section 5225 defines "place- ment" as not only erecting but "maintaining" billboards. Lamar also argued that a County ordinance—LACC section 22.56.1510—exempted Lamar's reconstruction from the permitting process. LACC section 22.56.150 provides that a non -conforming structure that is "damaged or partially destroyed" may be restored to the condition it was immediately prior to the damage or destruction, provided certain conditions are met. The trial court held that: (1) The re -erection of the billboard was not "customary maintenance" such that the OAA exempted the work from local and state regulation, but was rather a "placement" subject to local permitting requirements; and (2) Substantial evidence supported a find- ing that the billboard was completely destroyed, not "partially de- stroyed or damaged" and thus could not be repaired without a permit under LACC section 22.56.1510. Lamar timely appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California also rejected Lamar's arguments, and held that Lamar wasn't entitled — under OAA section 2270 or LACC section 22.56.1510—to rebuild without local regulation its windblown billboard. Agreeing with the trial court, the appellate court first held that Lamar's reconstruction of the billboard did not constitute "customary maintenance" allowed without local interference under OAA section 2270, and thus was not exempt from local regulation. The court noted that section 2270's definition of "customary maintenance" mandated that customary maintenance not alter the billboard's "existing approved physical configuration and size dimensions." Here, however, the court found that Lamar altered the size dimensions of the billboard and added several new components to the physical configuration. Accordingly, the court concluded that Lamar's re -erection of the billboard was not exempt from local regulation under OAA section 2270, but rather amounted to a "placement" subject to County peiinitting requirements (OAA section 5231). Also agreeing with the trial court, and disagreeing with Lamar, the appellate court concluded that LACC section 22.56.1510—which al- lowed for restoration of "damaged or partially destroyed" structures — did not entitle Lamar to reconstruction of the billboard. The court so concluded upon finding that Lamar's billboard had been "completely © 2018 Thomson Reuters 7