Scenic preservation organization petitioned for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, challenging development agreement between city and developers for mixed-use entertainment area based on argument that area identification signs contemplated by agreement constituted billboards that violated city codes.
The District Court issued writ preventing city from issuing building permits for, and developers from erecting, two of three challenged signs. Parties filed cross-appeals.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Under city land use code, area identification signs existed independently from on-premises or off-premises advertising displays and thus did not need to meet the commercial interest requirement for advertising displays;
- City’s classification of signs as “area identification signs” rather than advertising displays was not a manifest abuse of discretion;
- Organization did not have a beneficial interest in obtaining writ relief and thus did not have standing;
- Organization did not have standing on behalf of the public to challenge city’s development agreement; and
- Organization’s settlement agreement with city regarding billboards did not confer standing on organization to challenge development agreement.