Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

00 Page 6--February25,2004 Two weeks later, the representative sent another email to the director stat- lng he thought the playhouse violated setback requirements, but wasn't sure. After looking into the. matter, the city issued another order, finding the playhouse violated the zoning code. City law stated "neither the city council nor any member shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately." Levy sued, claiming this law made it illegal for city council members to engage in acts designed to influence city administrative staff through direct. communication. The court ruled in his favor. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The city council member did not violate the law by speaking with city planning department employees on behalf of. a constituent to inquire about a structure built on a neighbor's property. An order preventing such communi- cation would violate the First Amendment. The director testified she did not consider the emails to be orders. She. treated them as citizen complaints and merely referred them to the zoning administrator. The representative also emailed copies to the city manager, who also did not consider the email to be an order to city staff. Ultimately, both the neighbor's act of contacting her representative and the representative's act of contacting planning staff were petitions for griev- ances against the government protected by the First Amendment. Citation: Levy v. City of Santa Monica, Court of Appeal of Cali~brnia, 2n[i App. Dist., Div. 6, No. B157587 (2004). see also: Sate Farm General Insurance Company v. Majorino, 99 Cal. App. 4th 974 (2002). see also: Navellier v. Sletren, 29 Cal. 4rh 82 (2002). Appeal -- Law changes before appellate court makes'decision Permitted uses now listed for district NEW YORK (01/15/04) -- Waste Management of New York LLC sought site plan approval from the town of Bethlehem .Planning Board to build a regional operations facility, The facility would consist of a two-story office building, vehicle maintenance building, container storage area, and parking for 195 cars and 75 trucks. Waste Management stated the project was mainly a mainte- nance building/container storage facility. Neighboring property owners questioned whether the project was a per- mitred use in a "rural district not zoned." They argued the facility was a truck terminal, a use permitted only in industrial districts. The neighbors brought their challenges to the project before the board of appeals. The board found since the "rural district not zoned" did not follow the common plan and scheme of the other zoning districts by listing permitted uses, it was an unzoned area not subject to regulation. Consequently, it found all uses not specifically prohibited were permitted in the area.