Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2015

Home

March 25, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin Code § 170 provides that no judge shall sit or act in any action in which he is a party or in which he is interested. Thus, as fact -finders serving in adjudicatory capacity, the City Council members were required to be "dis- interested" for the purposes of affording due process, said the court. Ac- cordingly, since as a member of the council, Henn was to be a disinterested party, he could not simultaneously be an "interested party," for purpose of the appeal. Moreover, if he was, in fact, "interested," the fact that he sat and acted in the proceedings violated the law and Woody's due process rights. The City Council had contended that it was their "custom" to allow an exception for City Council members to appeal land use decisions "for the benefit" of the residents. The court rejected that argument, finding it was not authorized by the municipal code. In fact, the court found such a practice by the City Council was in direct violation of the code's requirements. Having found that the City's municipal code never allowed the appeal in the first place, the court concluded that the City Council's decision to re- verse the Planning Commission's approval of Woody's permit and variance had to be nullified (not just returned for consideration). See also: Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks, 30 Cal. App. 4th 547, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 782 (2d Dist. 1994), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Dec. 21, 1994). See also: Nasha L.L.C. v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. App. 4th 470, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20007 (2d Dist. 2004). Case Note: In its decision, the court, in discussing prior case law, noted that a city council member may be able to appeal a land use decision to the city council if (1) the mu- nicipal code explicitly permits an appeal by a council member; (2) the city council member is arguably not committed "to a result" of the appeal; and (3) the city council member does not control the hearing on the appeal. (See, e.g., Breakzone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 467 (2d Dist. 2000).) 8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters