Valley Outdoor, Inc., a California Corporation Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc., a California Corporation v. County of Riverside, a Political Subdivision of the State of California
Docket: 02-55475
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 31, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs-Appellants Valley Outdoor and Regency Outdoor Advertising, two California billboard companies, contest the constitutionality of Riverside County's sign ordinance, asserting violations of the First Amendment. They argue that both versions of the ordinance impose excessive restrictions on speech, favor commercial speech, and grant County officials excessive discretion in permitting signs. They also claim that a 'grandfather' provision in the new ordinance targets their billboards for retribution.
The case involves four billboards located along State Highway 91, with the plaintiffs holding property interests in them and leases for two more unconstructed billboards. The Original Ordinance, effective before the billboards' construction in 1998, imposed strict regulations on off-site advertising, including size and location restrictions, and required permits for any alterations, with violations classified as misdemeanors.
The New Ordinance, which took effect on July 23, 1999, retains the original's off-site versus on-site distinction but declares all pre-existing advertising displays illegal unless they complied with all relevant county regulations at the time of construction. It also allows non-commercial messages on permitted displays. The court, under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. 1291, affirmed the lower court's decision.
Valley and Regency initiated a federal lawsuit against Riverside County on January 13, 2000, following the dismissal of their initial complaint. They filed a First Amended Complaint on April 17, 2000, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, sections 2 and 7 of the California Constitution. The plaintiffs aimed to have both the Original and New Ordinances declared unconstitutional and sought an injunction against Riverside County from enforcing these ordinances or coercing the removal of their billboards, along with unspecified general damages.
In August and September 2001, both parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 15, 2001, the district court partially granted and denied both motions, declaring the New Ordinance unconstitutional only in its definition of signs based on compliance with the original ordinance. However, the court found the New Ordinance enforceable otherwise, allowing for the severance of the unconstitutional clause since the remaining provisions could function independently. The court ruled that the signs in question violated the valid zoning, height, and surface area provisions of both ordinances, warranting summary judgment for Riverside County on these claims.
The court affirmed the severability of the unconstitutional components of the New Ordinance's grandfather clause and confirmed that the content-neutral zoning, size, and height provisions of both ordinances were constitutional and independently enforceable. Severability is determined under state law, with the California Supreme Court outlining three criteria: grammatical, functional, and volitional separability. Both the grandfather provision and the zoning provisions of the New Ordinance satisfied these criteria, as they are self-contained, operational without the grandfather clause, and aligned with the legislative intent of the County.
Riverside County's Board of Supervisors emphasizes the necessity of sign control for aesthetic and safety purposes in a diverse and expanding jurisdiction. The ordinance aims to protect open spaces, scenic areas, and established rural communities while ensuring the health and welfare of residents through the regulation of sign design, location, and maintenance. The sign control measures are deemed constitutional as they are content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions that serve significant governmental interests and provide alternative channels for communication. The appellants' billboards are ruled illegal for not complying with the zoning, size, and height restrictions outlined in both the Original and New Ordinances. The claim for damages regarding the Original Ordinance is dismissed since the billboards were independently illegal under its content-neutral provisions, which are consistent with those of the New Ordinance. The definitions provided in the Original Ordinance include outdoor advertising structures and signs, with explicit exemptions for certain official notices and public utility structures. The New Ordinance further clarifies the definition of "non-commercial structures or signs," specifying that they must not advertise for profit or propose commercial transactions.
The district court did not specify the unconstitutionality of the Original Ordinance. The New Ordinance makes all pre-existing advertising displays illegal unless they complied with relevant county regulations at the time of their establishment. It also allows non-commercial messages on permitted displays. Valley and Regency sued Riverside County in federal court on January 13, 2000, after their initial complaint was dismissed, filing a First Amended Complaint on April 17, 2000. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of constitutional rights, asking the court to declare both ordinances unconstitutional and to prevent enforcement against their billboards, as well as to seek damages.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed in 2001, with the district court partially granting and denying both motions. It declared the New Ordinance unconstitutional only regarding its definition of sign legality based on compliance with the Original Ordinance, while deeming the rest of the New Ordinance enforceable and severable. The court concluded that summary judgment for Riverside County was appropriate since the signs violated constitutional zoning, height, and surface area provisions. The appellate agreement affirmed the district court's finding on the severability of the unconstitutional aspects of the New Ordinance. It highlighted that the zoning, size, and height provisions were constitutional and enforceable, regardless of other constitutional issues. Severability under California law requires that provisions be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.
Severability of a statute is permissible when its valid and invalid components can be distinctly separated, as established in Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court. The determination of severability hinges on whether the remaining provisions stand alone and reflect the legislative intent, assuming the legislative body had anticipated the partial invalidity. The New Ordinance's "grandfather" provision and zoning provisions are self-contained and functional independently. The ordinance remains aligned with the County's legislative purpose, which emphasizes effective sign control for aesthetic and safety reasons, preservation of resources, and public welfare. The zoning, size, and height restrictions are constitutional as they are content-neutral regulations that serve significant governmental interests while allowing alternative communication channels. Consequently, the appellants’ billboards are deemed illegal due to non-compliance with these restrictions, and their claim for damages regarding the Original Ordinance is unfounded, as the billboards were also illegal under its similar provisions. The court's decision is affirmed.
Valley and Regency acquired billboard property interests from OMG in June 1998. The Original Ordinance defined "outdoor advertising display" without a specific definition for "advertising," including definitions for "outdoor advertising structure" and "outdoor advertising sign." An "outdoor advertising structure" is any erected or maintained structure for outdoor advertising, while an "outdoor advertising sign" encompasses various materials placed for outdoor advertising purposes. Exemptions from these definitions include official notices, legal notices, directional signs authorized by law, and structures near city or county boundaries displaying civic or organizational information. The New Ordinance defines a "non-commercial structure or sign" as any contrivance that does not advertise for profit, propose a commercial transaction, or relate solely to economic interests. Additionally, the district court did not clarify the unconstitutionality of the Original Ordinance in its opinion.
