Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 20160150,20160150 |
| Citation | 416 P.3d 389 |
| Parties | OUTFRONT MEDIA, LLC, Appellant, v. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Corner Property, L.C., and Utah Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Leslie Van Frank, Bradley M. Strassberg, Salt Lake City, for appellant
Samantha J. Slark, Katherine N. Lewis, Salt Lake City, for appellee Salt Lake City Corporation
Jon H. Rogers, Salt Lake City, for appellees Corner Property, L.C. and Utah Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
Introduction¶ 1 In this case, we review Salt Lake City’s decisions regarding two billboard owners’ requests to relocate their billboards. Outfront Media, LLC, formerly CBS Outdoor, LLC, (CBS) came out the worse in the City’s decision-making process. The City denied CBS’s request to relocate its billboard to an adjacent lot along Interstate 15 (I-15). The same day, the City granted Corner Property, L.C.’s request to relocate its billboard to the lot CBS was vacating.
¶ 2 Dissatisfied with the City’s decisions, CBS appealed to a land use hearing officer, who upheld both decisions. CBS then sought judicial review in district court under the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Utah Code section 10-9a-801. The district court also upheld the City’s decisions. CBS now appeals to this court, contending that the City’s denial of its relocation request and grant of Corner Property’s were arbitrary, capricious, and illegal.
¶ 3 CBS’s primary argument on appeal is that the City’s decision to deny CBS’s requested relocation was "illegal" because the City invoked the power of eminent domain to effect a physical taking of CBS’s billboard without complying with the procedural requirements that constrain the use of eminent domain. In particular, CBS asserts that the City was required to comply with Utah Code section 78B-6-504(2)(b), which provides that "[p]roperty may not be taken by a political subdivision of the state unless the governing body of the political subdivision approves the taking." For a city, the "governing body" is the city’s "legislative body." For Salt Lake City, that legislative body is the city council. It is undisputed that the City’s mayor made the decision denying CBS’s request to relocate its billboard without the approval of the Salt Lake City Council.
¶ 4 At the heart of this case is the proper interpretation of Utah Code section 10-9a-513 (Billboard Compensation Statute), which provides that a municipality is "considered to have initiated the acquisition of a billboard structure by eminent domain" when it denies billboard relocation requests that, like CBS’s, meet certain spacing requirements. In CBS’s view, under this statute the denial of its relocation request constituted a physical taking of its billboard, which required compliance with the eminent domain procedures. We disagree. The Billboard Compensation Statute does not provide that a municipality has taken a billboard structure when it denies a relocation request. Instead, under that section, a municipality is only considered to have done so for purposes of compensation. We therefore view the Billboard Compensation Statute as creating a standalone compensation scheme that does not incorporate, expressly or impliedly, the procedural requirements that circumscribe the eminent domain power. Accordingly, the mayor of Salt Lake City was not required to seek the approval of the Salt Lake City Council before denying CBS’s request to relocate its billboard.
¶ 5 We also reject CBS’s additional arguments that the Mayor’s decision violated the City’s billboard ordinance and that the Mayor’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. We therefore affirm the district court.
¶ 6 CBS owned a billboard at 726 West South Temple, adjacent to I-15. CBS leased the land at that location from Corner Property. Corner Property also owned land and had a billboard at 280 West 500 South. In the fall of 2014, CBS’s lease from Corner Property was about to expire, so CBS sought a means for relocating its billboard. CBS submitted a request—not the one currently before us—to the City to relocate its billboard to an adjacent lot at 738 West South Temple, and to increase its billboard’s height. The City denied this request, and this denial was affirmed upon district court review.1 CBS then voluntarily demolished its billboard to avoid trespassing on Corner Property’s land.
¶ 7 In its letter denying CBS’s first request, the City told CBS it could "modify its application to either bank its billboard credits [for the now demolished sign] ... or request to relocate the sign under Utah Code 10-9a-511(3)(c)(i)." The City reserved the right, however, to condemn the sign under Utah Code section 10-9a-513(2). CBS accepted this invitation to modify its relocation request ten months later.2 Its modified relocation request conformed to the requirements of Utah Code section 10-9a-511(3)(c)(i) (the Billboard Relocation Statute). That statute provides that a municipality may, despite a prohibition in its zoning ordinance, agree to a mutually acceptable relocation of a billboard. But if the City denies a billboard owner’s request to relocate, and the request meets certain spacing requirements, the City "is considered to have initiated the acquisition of [the] billboard structure by eminent domain."3 CBS’s requested relocation, from the 726 lot to the 738 lot, was within the spacing requirements.
¶ 8 Shortly after CBS first applied to relocate its billboard, Corner Property also requested to relocate a billboard under the Billboard Relocation Statute. Corner Property asked the City to permit it to relocate its billboard from 280 West 500 South to 726 West South Temple. This move failed to satisfy the spacing requirements in the Billboard Compensation Statute, so the City would have been free to deny it without paying just compensation. The City could not grant both CBS’s and Corner Property’s requests to relocate, because state law prohibits freeway-oriented billboards from being located within 500 feet of each other,4 and the two South Temple lots are within that spacing restriction. Both relocations were also technically prohibited under the City’s zoning ordinance pertaining to billboards, Salt Lake City Code section 21A.46.160(N). That ordinance prohibits the construction of new billboards in a "gateway" area, which includes I-15 and the area of 500 South where Corner Property’s billboard was previously located.5
¶ 9 The City, acting through its then-mayor, Ralph Becker, and without seeking the approval of the city council, denied CBS’s request to relocate its billboard and approved Corner Property’s. The City stated that its reason for denying CBS’s request was that the requested location fell within a gateway under the City’s zoning ordinances, and the ordinance prohibits construction of a billboard in a gateway area. The City acknowledged that it had authority under the Billboard Relocation Statute to waive this zoning ordinance, but it informed CBS that it was unwilling to do so because it "has a longstanding policy in favor of retiring and removing billboards as the opportunity to do so arises."
¶ 10 The City granted Corner Property’s request to relocate on the same day it denied CBS’s. Though, like CBS’s request, Corner Property’s requested relocation would have been in violation of the "gateway" zoning ordinance, the City waived this ordinance for Corner Property. Mayor Becker submitted a declaration stating that he decided to deny CBS’s request, and grant Corner Property’s, in order to achieve a net reduction in the number of billboards located in "gateway" areas by one. His decisions resulted in the permanent removal of Corner Property’s 500 South billboard.
¶ 11 CBS sought review of these decisions before the City’s appeal authority, a land use hearing officer.6 The hearing officer ultimately upheld the City’s decisions to deny CBS’s request and approve Corner Property’s. CBS then sought judicial review in district court.7 The district court rejected CBS’s arguments and concluded that the City’s decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal, and affirmed the decision. CBS now appeals, pressing the same arguments it made below. We have jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(j).
¶ 12 This is an appeal from a district court’s review of an administrative appeal challenging a municipal land use decision.8 "When a district court reviews an order of a local land use authority and we exercise appellate review of the district court’s judgment, ... we afford no deference to the district court’s decision."9 The legislature has directed that "[t]he courts shall ... presume that a decision, ordinance, or regulation made under the authority of this chapter is valid; and [ ] determine only whether or not the decision, ordinance, or regulation is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal."10 "A determination of illegality requires a determination that the decision, ordinance, or regulation violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect at the time the decision was made or the ordinance or regulation adopted."11 The proper interpretation of a set of statutes presents a question of law, which we review for correctness.12 We review the interpretation of ordinances for correctness as well.13 A decision is arbitrary and capricious only if it is not supported by "substantial evidence," which is "that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion."14
¶ 13 CBS levels three challenges at the City’s decision denying its billboard relocation request.15 First, CBS contends that the decision to deny its request was illegal because Mayor Becker did not obtain the approval of the city council before making that decision....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widdison v. State
...be in no position to do so without invitation and briefing from the parties. See supra ¶¶ 25; 25 n.6; 37.34 See Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 2017 UT 74, ¶ 12 n.13, 416 P.3d 389 (crediting "recent decisions" and holding that judicial deference to local agencies’ interpretati......
-
Wheelan v. City of Gautier
...(citing Story Bed & Breakfast, LLP v. Brown Cnty. Area Plan Comm'n , 819 N.E.2d 55, 65 (Ind. 2004) )); Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 416 P.3d 389, 394 n.13 (Utah 2017) (explaining that Utah courts give no deference to local board interpretations of ordinances); River's Edge ......
-
State In Interest of L.L.
...federal administrative agency's interpretation of a federal statute pursuant to the Chevron deference doctrine. See Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 2017 UT 74, ¶ 12 n.13, 416 P.3d 389 ; Ellis-Hall Consultants v. Public Service Comm'n , 2016 UT 34, ¶ 33, 379 P.3d 1270 ; Hughes ......
-
N. Monticello Alliance, LLC v. San Juan Cnty.
...that the omission is purposeful. Carrier v. Salt Lake Cnty. , 2004 UT 98, ¶ 30, 104 P.3d 1208, abrogated by Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 2017 UT 74, ¶ 30, 416 P.3d 389 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶29 Just as we read the omission of participatory r......
-
JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO MUNICIPAL INTERPRETATION.
...Prop. Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Morrow, 112 F.3d 1114, 1119(11th Cir. 1997))). (114.) See Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp., 416 P.3d 389, 394 (Utah 2017); see also Ellis-Hall Consultants, 379 P.3d at (115.) See Ellis-Hall Consultants, 379 P.3d at 1273-74. The court had previously ......