Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 6 made an "official request to appeal" the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council because he "strongly believ[ed]" the "operational characteristics requested in the application and the Planning Commission's decision [were] inconsistent with the existing and expected residential character of the area and the relevant policies of the voter approved 2006 General Plan." At the City Council's hearing on Henn's appeal, Henn gave a long, pre- pared presentation, arguing why the Planning.Commission decision needed to be overturned. The City Council ultimately voted to reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Woody's appealed, seeking a writ of administrative mandate. The court denied Woody's requested writ. Woody again appealed. Among other things, Woody argued that Henn was biased. Woody also argued that, under the City's municipal code, Henn was not permitted to bring the appeal. DECISION: Judgment of superior court reversed with directions. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, agreed with Woody's arguments. It held that Woody's due process right to fair procedure was violated by: (1) the "unacceptable probability of bias" on the part of Henn; and (2) the City Council's consideration of the appeal in light of the fact that, pursuant to the City's municipal code, the City Council had no author- ity to hear Henn's appeal since he had failed to comply with procedures required by the municipal code. In so holding, the court noted that the law requires an adjudicatory body—such as the City Council in its capacity in reviewing land use deci- sions—to be "neutral and unbiased." The court said that a land use pemrit applicant's due process right to fair procedure would be found to have been violated if it could be shown that there was an "unacceptable probability of actual bias" on the part of the municipal decision maker. Here, the court found that Woody's had shown an "unacceptable probability of actual bias" on Henn's part. The wording in Henn's e-mail appeal showed that Henn was strongly opposed to the Planning Commission's decision on Woody's application. It was Henn who "appealed" the Planning Commission's deci- sion to the City Council on which he was a member, and gave a lengthy, prepared presentation at the City Council's hearing on the appeal in support of overturning the decision. The court also found that Henn, a City Council member, violated the City's own municipal code—as well as Woody's due process rights to fair procedure—by initiating an appeal to the City Council. Among other things, noted the court, the City's municipal code required that appeals from Plan- ning Commission decisions be: (1) brought by an "interested party"; (2) filed on forms provided by the City clerk; and (3) accompanied by a filing fee. The court found that Henn's appeal did not meet any of those requirements. Significantly, the court found that the requirement of an "interested party" bringing an appeal simultaneously conveyed that "disinterested" persons were not eligible to bring an appeal. The court noted that California Civil © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7