My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:28:51 AM
Creation date
12/28/2017 9:12:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/07/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
218
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 16, <br />ing decision, and thus had standing here, because it was a beneficiary of the <br />easements and covenants that burdened Lucas' property. The court rejected <br />that argument, finding that the easements and covenants did not grant benefi- <br />ciary status to the Foundation. Moreover, the court noted that the Founda- <br />tion's remedy for any interference or violation of the easement rights by Lucas <br />would be a claim for breach of contract. <br />Validity of Zoning Ordinance <br />Votersenact initiative that requires <br />voter -approved site plan for certain <br />development <br />Developers challenge validity of initiative, arguing <br />its administrative in nature and thus in excess of <br />initiative power , <br />Citation: Park At Cross Creek, LLC v. City of Malibu, 12 Cal. App. <br />5th 1196, 2017 WL 2665935 (2d Dist. 2017) <br />CALIFORNIA (06/21/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a city's initiative and referendum, which required a voter -approved site <br />plan for certain development in excess of 20,000 square feet was in- <br />valid in excess of the initiative power. It also addressed whether a city's <br />initiative, which required establishment -specific conditional use plans <br />for formula retail establishments, was illegal. <br />The Background/Facts: In November 2014, the voters of the City <br />of Malibu (the "City") enacted Measure R. Measure R was an "initia- <br />tive designed to limit large developments and chain establishments." It <br />had two primary components. First, Measure R required the City <br />Council to prepare a specific plan for every proposed commercial or <br />mixed -use development in excess of 20,000 square feet for the com- <br />mercial area. Among other things, the specific plan had to address the <br />following: floor area; requirements "to ensure the retention of retail <br />businesses serving local residents and visitors"; preserving important <br />view corridors and vistas; traffic; public facilities, services, and eco- <br />nomic analysis; open space; parking; enlargement of the commercial <br />area; and geological, hydroelectrical, and wastewater impacts. The <br />City's specific plan then had to be placed on the ballot for voter <br />approval. Second, Measure R restricted formula retail establishments, <br />defined as "an establishment having 10 or more retail establishments in <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.