CCMIN030403 - Laserfiche WebLink

has appealed it. There were many instances where he asked for an appeal because he wanted to have clarification and more information on the subject in question, not necessarily because he was opposed to it. Members of the public have come to him and ask that the item be appealed because they wanted more discussion. The Planning Commission should be treated the same as a City Councilmember. He stated that he was not interested in changing the process. Ms. Hosterman agreed with Mayor Pico and felt the process of the Zoning Administrator took care of administrative functions. As soon as the Zoning Administrator makes a decision, this is the first opportunity the Council has that something has taken place. She felt the Council did need to protect the right of not only an interested individual member of the public, or any member of the Planning Commission, or any member of the City Council, to review any Zoning Administrator decision which may or may not be in the best interest of the community. She felt that some due process questions are involved. She felt that any interested party should be able to appeal any Zoning Administrator decision, but perhaps that individual, in order to separate and clean up the due process problems should be recused from an ultimate vote. She asked if this should be an issue to be concerned about. Mr. Roush said it is an issue and there is currently a split of authority whether or not, if an individual councilmember, either sitting at the dais or individually, appeals the decision the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, must be recused. He advised at this point it is an open question. If Council is comfortable continuing that process, then it should be left alone until there is a more definitive decision in the Court of Appeal or from the California Supreme Court. Council could certainly make the policy decision and codify it in the ordinance to say that when a City Councilmember appeals a decision, then that Councilmember must be recused. He did not think that is required under the current state of law. There still is flexibility on it and it is more of a policy issue than a legal issue at this point. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Roush to present the process by breaking it into steps. Mr. Roush replied that matters come to the Council in a number of different ways. Many times Council will get a recommendation from the Planning Commission on legislative matters, e.g. general plan amendments, specific plans, ordinances, zoning changes, or things similar. These come to Council automatically, even though there is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to either approve it or not. Or an item might come to Council as an appeal or to a conditional use permit or a variance, or some other action that is considered quasi-judicial. The final decision making authority resides with the Planning Commission, unless someone appeals it to the City Council. Sometimes, in a design review issue, the Zoning Administrator, has the final decision unless the matter is appealed. The question becomes when someone sees an item and feels, for whatever reason, that the Council ought to review the decision. The question now becomes one of due process enabling the person who appealed the item to be a fair and impartial decision maker on the item. Right now the law could go either way, depending how the cases are read. His opinion is that unless the Council feels that it is Pleasanton City Council 9 03/04/03 Minutes