HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 3, 2002 E-17.�OF,(
CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONO
FF
n �P
4<IFOat�
AGENDA TITLE: Request to Join in Amicus Brief in the case of Valley
Outdoor v. County of Riverside. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
MEETING DATE: July 3, 2002
PREPARED BY: Randall A. Hays, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the City join the Amicus Brief in the case of Valley
Outdoor v. County of Riverside, Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
BACKGROUND: Amicus Briefs are filed in various actions, which involves matters of
wide-ranging concern to provide information and additional
argument to the Court in order to assist the Court in understanding
all of the issues and arrive at a conclusion.
This case involves an ambush by a billboard manufacturer. Valley Outdoor, knowing that they had never
applied for the required local permits, late on a Friday afternoon sent a construction company to the site
they wished to build a billboard. This particular site was not appropriately zoned for billboard installation.
The construction company began work over the weekend and completed the structural building of the
billboard before Riverside County could get into court to request a temporary restraining order. The
County did file a suit in state court seeking a temporary restraining order, the object being to abate the
illegally built billboard. The billboard company's reaction was to file a suit in federal court seeking a
declaration that Riverside County's sign ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable and claiming a
vested right to a nonconforming use. The County has prevailed both in its state court action and in the
federal trial court action. The billboard company has appealed both the state and federal court decisions
that have been rendered against them. At this point, the League is requesting amicus participation in the
federal action which is scheduled before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later this year. Clearly if
Riverside County is not successful before the Ninth Circuit, this billboard ambush scenario likely will
reoccur in city after city. Billboard companies will erect more signs in open defiance of local zoning laws
and then bring expensive risky constitutional litigation against every resisting city. The policy decisions of
elected law makers could be trumped by the private veto of billboard companies.
Funding: Not applicable.
Respectfully submitted,