Amerco Real Estate Co. v. City of West Sacramento
224 Cal. App. 4th 778
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- U-Haul (Amerco Real Estate Co.) operates a truck rental site in West Sacramento with a lawfully installed 35-ft two-pole freestanding sign erected in 1976.
- In 1993 the City adopted a sign ordinance limiting freestanding pole signs in the Central Business District to 12 ft (15-year amortization to 2008); most nearby businesses complied.
- The City pursued enforcement to reduce U-Haul’s sign to the 12-ft limit (or 112 sq ft freestanding), and an administrative hearing officer and the City’s Board of Appeals rejected U-Haul’s claim under Business & Professions Code § 5499.
- U-Haul petitioned for writ of administrative mandate in superior court; the trial court applied the substantial evidence standard, inspected the site, and denied relief.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed: it held the substantial evidence standard was proper and concluded the administrative record supports the City’s findings that reducing the sign would not materially impair visibility or communicative effectiveness under § 5499.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for a § 5499 administrative decision | U-Haul: independent judgment review applies because sign rights implicate fundamental speech/property interests | City: substantial evidence review applies because loss is economic/aesthetic and does not destroy the business | Substantial evidence test applies (no fundamental vested right at stake) |
| Whether a conforming 12-ft sign would be materially less visible | U-Haul: expert testimony and photos show westbound visibility/readability of panels would be materially impaired | City: photos, site conditions, tree canopy, flat topography, slow speeds, local customer base, and most nearby conforming signs support no material impairment | Substantial evidence supports City that visibility would not be materially impaired |
| Whether a conforming sign would materially impair adequate/effective communication | U-Haul: taller sign is more eye-catching and necessary for effective communication | City: most nearby businesses adequately communicate with conforming signs; U-Haul can use up to 112 sq ft split across signs and its trucks provide on-site advertising | Substantial evidence supports City that communication would not be materially impaired |
| Remedy/relief sought (writ of administrative mandate) | U-Haul: seeks writ vacating administrative decision and preserving 35-ft sign under § 5499 | City: enforcement to conform sign to ordinance; administrative findings supported | Writ denied; judgment affirming City enforcement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Interstate Brands v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 26 Cal.3d 770 (recognizing tests for when an administrative decision affects a fundamental vested right)
- Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa, 6 Cal.App.4th 1519 (independent judgment review applied where administrative action would destroy a longstanding business)
- E.W.A.P., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 56 Cal.App.4th 310 (substantial evidence review appropriate where impact is economic/aesthetic)
- Denny’s, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills, 56 Cal.App.4th 1312 (analysis of § 5499 issues in freeway-oriented commercial corridor; court applied substantial evidence to bench trial findings)
- Carlin v. City of Palm Springs, 14 Cal.App.3d 706 (government may reasonably regulate on-premises business signs under police power)