Laserfiche WebLink
Pa,,,=? 4 -- September 25, 2004 <br /> <br />Z,B, <br /> <br /> The city appealed, arguing the distinction was.permissible. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> T' <br /> ~ ne distinction was perrmssible. <br /> Distinguishing between two classes of businesses was not suspect. The <br />sign ordinance was related to the legitimate government interests of promoting <br />traffic and pedesman safety and maintaining the cormmunity's aesthetic value. <br /> Although the maximum sign lirmtation effectively distinguished between <br />single- and multi-r, enant buildings, the :['act Norman was treated di:tYerently was <br />no[ enough [o tend the ordinance unconstitutional. <br /> Lim2fing the size of signs to dissipate visual clutter was reasonably related to <br />protecting th~ general weft-are because visual clutter detracted from the conz.munity's <br />aestheuc value and could create dangerous distractions to passersby. Thus, the <br />city could limit the amount of signs based on ~he number of tenants in a building. <br />see also: Muskegon Are~ Re;wal Associasion v. CiU Of Muskegon, 636 N. W. 2J <br />751 <br />see cdso: Depczrrmenr of Ironsporrc~lion v. RandoZph, 6 ~ 0 N. W. 2d 893 (~000). <br /> <br />OrdSnance ~ New ordinance requires conditional use permits for water <br />storage <br />La~'Mowner ck~ims ordi~a~ce specifically ~argets projec! <br />Citation.' De/.r.o ~rlands Properties v. CounO; of San doaquin, Court of Appeal <br />of Calijbrnia, 3rd, App. Dist., t4o. 0043811 (2004) ' <br /> <br /> C,~.~O~X~ (07/29/04) -- Delta 5Vetlands Propemes applied for a pem~t to <br />appropriate water karo its ph~ed s~orage fac~tfes. Delta wanted to flood <br />islands during periods of Ngh runoff and sell the grated water to unnamed <br />purchasers. <br /> Soon thereafter, the county passed an ordinance li~ting water storage <br />facilities of 500 acres or more to two a~cultural zones and maNng them subject <br />~o a conditional use petit. Such facilities were not allowed in residential, <br />dusu-ia!, or other zones. However, ~he ordinance did not apply to reservoirs <br />under sta~e jurisdiction as provided in the s~ate water code. <br /> Delta sued, arguing the new ordinance was discd~natory. ~e cour~ ruled <br />in ~hvor of the count'.,,'. <br /> Delta appealed, argum~ o~17 its project was targeted by the new ordfnancs. <br /> <br /> The pern~ re~uiremen~ for wa~er s~orage projecs appiied not jua~ ao Delta's <br />orooe~[v, but throu,~hou~ .t - ...t~=~. Durm~ ordinance hear- <br />.... .n~ ~vvo ;xgricuitural 7 .... <br />....i,,o<~. :he ,.:ounc.,' staff stated ,.sine, '~ ~ projects. S,~e~,_;~,, developed ~ght be~oo, e~" '~ <br /> <br />] 36 e. -2c0,-~ .7, u~p, la~ 3uciisntns 2cot;o. za,,, ,-a;0ro¢luc:ion :~ srcmb~tec. :,:r :nore nfcrmanos 5~easa :2alt :6;7' <br /> <br /> <br />