Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. County of Alameda
114 F. Supp. 3d 952
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Citizens for Free Speech and Shaw sue Alameda County over billboard zoning regulations in unincorporated areas.
- This case follows a prior preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Title 17 Zoning Ordinance against Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs allege the Zoning Ordinance violates free speech and equal protection, both on as-applied and facial grounds.
- Plaintiffs’ signs on Shaw’s Parcel (PD district) are non-commercial now but may display commercial content later.
- County moves for summary judgment, arguing as-applied challenges fail and facial challenges lack unfettered discretion or are content-neutral.
- Court analyzes Sections 17.52.520(Q)/(D), 17.18.130, 17.54.130, and 17.52.515, along with related procedures for CUPs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ordinance grant unfettered discretion to officials? | Plaintiffs allege Sections 17.52.520(Q)/(D), 17.18.130 confer unfettered discretion. | County argues standards exist and process provides review; some provisions moot. | Partially granted: unfettered discretion claims as to 17.18.130 remain; 17.52.520(Q)/(D) moot due to amendments. |
| Is Section 17.52.515 a content-based restriction? | Section 17.52.515 is content-based because other exemptions render it so. | Section 17.52.515 regulates only commercial speech; exemptions do not render it content-based. | Content-based challenge rejected under First Amendment; statute passes intermediate scrutiny for commercial speech and is valid. |
| Does the regulation violate the First Amendment as applied to Plaintiffs? | As-applied challenge to enforceability of PD provisions against Plaintiffs’ signs. | County asserts proper application to the PD Plan and CUP processes. | Granted as to as-applied challenge to the challenged provisions. |
| Do Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims survive summary judgment? | Plaintiffs compare to CBS/Clear Channel relocation and government speakers showing dissimilar treatment. | CBS/Clear Channel not similarly situated; government speakers not addressed in opening brief. | Denied: court does not grant summary judgment on equal protection claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (Supreme Court 1990) (facially broad licensing schemes implicated in prior restraint analysis)
- Moreno Valley v. City of Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996) (undermines unfettered discretion with indefinite subjective criteria)
- Seattle Affiliate of Oct. 22nd Coalition v. City of Seattle, 550 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2008) (totality of factors for licensing discretion and judicial review)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court 1981) (billboard regulation tied to substantial governmental interests in aesthetics and safety)
- City of Oakland, 506 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness and reviewability of permit decisions under local ordinances)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (Supreme Court 2015) (content-based distinctions and applicability to sign codes (not controlling here))