2002 AGN AUG 06 I24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item #24 CITY OF COLTON AGENDA REPORT FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF August 6, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ROM: City Attorney ECT: Request for Amicus Curiae Support in Valley Outdoor v. County of Riverside DATE: August 6, 2002 BACKGROUND: From time to time, public agencies seek the City=s support as an amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). The County of Riverside is requesting support for their amicus brief in re Valley Outdoor v. County of Riverside. There is no cost to the City to participate as an amicus curiae. This federal case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a billboard company's claim that the County's sign regulation ordinance is unconstitutional and thereby unenforceable. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Valley Outdoor, a billboard company, knowingly erected two large signs in a prohibited area without applying for the required local permits. A crew worked the weekend to build the illegal sign structures. The signs also violated the County's size and height limits for billboards. Although Valley Outdoor obtained a Caltrans permit and private land leases, it did not apply for a County billboard permit and did not seek a change of zoning which would have made the location legal for billboards. By the time the County could get into court to request a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the sign structures were already built. The County sued in state court, seeking a TRO and abatement of nuisance. Valley Outdoor sued in federal court, seeking a declaration that the County's sign ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable, and claiming a vested right to a nonconforming use (since the signs were constructed prior to the County seeking a TRO). The federal court held that the County's sign ordinance was unconstitutional. However, since the billboards clearly violated the County's size and height limits, the federal court said the billboards were still unlawful. In response to the ruling, Valley Outdoor filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. RVPUB\KXM\636505