OrangeCoast Equities v. City of Victorville
Plaintiff and appellant Orange Coast Equities, LLC (OCE) sought approval of a subdivision map for the development of vacant property. Two billboards exist along a 14-foot strip of that parcel to be dedicated for road widening under the City of Victorvilles (City) General Plan. The City denied approval of OCEs subdivision map due to Citys determination that the proposed subdivision map did not comply with the General Plan as required by the Subdivision Map Act. (Gov. Code, 66410, et seq.) The proposed subdivision map omitted the street dedications necessary for Motorized Circulation Element of the General Plan. OCE claimed that the Citys refusal to approve the subdivision map constituted imposition of a de facto condition of removal of the billboards for approval of the map at its own expense, in violation of the Outdoor Advertising Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code, 5412.6.) OCE sought a petition for writ of mandate seeking relief from the Citys administrative decision, as well as a complaint for declaratory relief and inverse condemnation. The trial court denied OCEs petition for writ of mandate.
OCE appeals, claiming that the City violated Business and Professions Code section 5412.6 by denying approval of the subdivision map without providing compensation for the removal of the billboards. We conclude the Citys determination that the subdivision map failed to comply with the General Plan due to OCEs failure to include on the map the dedications for the widening of Amargosa Road, does not constitute a requirement by the City that a lawfully erected display be removed as a condition or prerequisite for the issuance of the approval, within the meaning of the Outdoor Advertising Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code, 5412.6.)
Comments on OrangeCoast Equities v. City of Victorville