AgdaPkt 2005-01-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

e. A/ll COURT RULES DUE PROCESS REQUIRES ATTENTIVENESS AT QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS In late December, a court of appeal over-ruled a city council's decision relating to conditions imposed on a sexually-oriented business. The focus of the court's attention was what's known as a "quasi-judicial" hearing, in which the council decides the application of the city's law to a specific property. In such a hearing, due process principles apply. The court ruled that the lack of council member attentiveness at the hearing suggested that the council could not have made a reasoned decision based on hearing all of the evidence and arguments, which due process requires. The court based its conclusion at least in part on a videotape of the hearing. The court noted that some decision-makers were engaged in cell phone conversations, others were talking with one another and others were reviewing paperwork. The decision is being reviewed by the League's Legal Advocacy Committee this week. The case name is Lacy Street Hospitality Service v. City of Los Angeles, No. B 170716 (2d Dist. December 30,2004). The text of the oDin ion can be located on the Internet by entering "Lacy Street Hospitality Service" in the Google (www.aooale.com) search box. Planning Commission Decision Overturned Because of Bias Also in late December, a planning commission's decision was overturned on due process grounds. One of the planning commis- sioners had authored a short article in a commu- nity association newsletter that the court deter- mined was hostile to the project before the com- mission. The court concluded the article, which did not byline the commissioner, described the project as a threat to a wildlife conidor and en- couraged the neighbors to contact project oppo- nents. The court rejected arguments the article was merely informational. The court observed that the issue before the commission - the propriety of a mitigated nega- tive declaration under the Califomia Environmen- tal Quality Act - was a quasi-judicial proceeding subject to due process requirements. According to the court, due process requires a "reasonably impartial, noninvolved decisionmaker." The court found that the planning commissioner's author- ship of the article gave rise to an unacceptable probability of bias against the project and that the commissioner should have recused himself from - participating in the decision. The decision is being reviewed by the League's Legal Advocacy Committee this week. The case name is Nasha v. City of Los Angeles, No. B167071 (2d Dist. December 29,2004). The text of the opinion_can be located on the Internet by entering "Nasha + 'Los Angeles'" in the Google (www.aooale.com) search box. For More Information. .. . . . about due process and quasi-judicial decision-making, check out the "legal issues" section of the League's Planning Commissioner's Handbook and/or the "Trans- parency and Faimess. section of the Institute for Local Self Government's A Local Officials Refer- ence on Ethics Laws being released in mid- January. More information about both resources is available through the Institute for Local Self Govemment's website at www.ilsQ.orQ. For additional resources on this and other Leé9Je issues, visit CityBooks www.cacities.orgIcitybooks. PAGE 6/PRIORITV FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site.. www.cacities.org