Laserfiche WebLink
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br />OPINION NO. 74-14 <br />March 27, 1974 <br />SUBJECT: Prohibition of Issuance of Permits by Resolution <br />Pending Amendment to Municipal Code Regulations. <br />REQUESTED BY: Charles J. Liberto <br />Assistant City Attorney <br />OPINION BY: K. George Kiraithe, Law Clerk <br />QUESTION l: Can a Charter City prohibit issuance of permits for <br />construction of off-premise advertising signs by <br />resolution pending amendment to regulations under <br />municipal code? <br />ANSWER: Yes <br />ANALYSIS: <br />A case in point <br />the issuance <br />code zoning <br />Los Anqeles, <br />of permits <br />regulations <br />(1963, Cal <br />regarding the appropriateness of prohibiting <br />by resolution pending amendment to municipal <br />is Los Anqeles v. Superior Court for County of <br />App) 34 Cal Rptr 161. <br />In that case, after acq <br />property owners proceeded to p <br />and other preliminaries to the <br />permits in accordance with the <br />application on May 21, 1963. <br />Council (Charter City) passed <br />rezone the area as amore rest <br />the issuance of any building p <br />on this resolution, the city a <br />The trial court ordered a writ <br />ing permits to plaintiffs. On <br />administrative denial of plain <br />.tiring a piece of property in June 1961, <br />~epare at large cost architectural plans. <br />filing of an application for building <br />existing ordinances. They filed their <br />~n June 28, 1963, the Los Angeles City <br />i resolution stating its intention to <br />~icted height district and prohibiting <br />~rmits contrary to the resolution. Based <br />3ministration denied the application. <br />of mandamus compelling issuance of build- <br />appeal, the District Court held that the <br />tiffs bui l d i ncf nPrmi to i n arrnrrianr•a t.~i t}, <br />the resolution was proper and issued a peremptory writ of prohibition <br />to stay the issuance of the Superior Court's writ of mandamus compelling <br />issuance of the building permits. The court's rationale was that since <br />the impending rezoning of the area was a matter of public notoriety at <br />and before the time of the filing of the application for the building <br />permits for construction, the plaintiffs had sought to acquire vested <br />-44- <br />