Item C. 2. Council Review of Planning Commission DecisionsCOUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 1/7/95
ITEM NO. 0. 2 .
ATTACHMENT 3
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 5, 1995
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LARRY E. ANDERSON, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS
In response to Council concerns about the standard set in the Town Code for Council modification
or reversal of Planning Commission decision, we did a first draft for discussion purposes, which is attached.
As you can see, the current standard is either "error" or "abuse of discretion". This is quite a high
standard under normal legal interpretations.
Abuse of discretion has been defined by the California Supreme Court:
In a legal sense discretion is abused whenever the exercise of its discretion the court exceeds
the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.
State Farm Ins. Co. vs. Superior Court (1956) 47 CaI.2d 428, 432. The term is also used in connection with
such descriptions as arbitrary and capricious, or in circumstances where the agency can only exercise
discretion in one way.
The draft proposal would still require findings for reversal and would require a higher standard than
disagreement with the Commission's action. It would also explicitly require the person appealing the decision
to bear the burden of showing the basis for a possible reversal or modification. Because the Town does not
charge an appeal fee for appeals to the Council, this revised limitation on review would continue to encourage
citizens and applicants to accept the Commission action.
PREPARED BY: LARRY E. ANDERSON, TOWN ATTORNEY
LEA:YFO 1/5/95 4:05 PM
DISKO2O\A:\C:\WPFILES\CNCLRPTS\CMMSSN. RPT
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Draft Proposal
Reviewed by: Manager Clerk Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
CURRENT:
"If the decision is adverse to that of the Planning Commission on any appeal, the
resolution shall specify where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the
Planning Commission."
DRAFT PROPOSAL:
"If the Council decides to modify or reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission on any appeal, the resolution shall specify one or more of the following:
1. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning
Commission; or
2. The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal
process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission;
or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to
modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; or
4. The condition or conditions that cause an unreasonable hardship on the
appellant and the reasons and extent of modification.
The appellant bears the burden of proof before the Council in proving that one or more
of these reasons exist on the appeal for reversing or modifying a Commission decision."
ATTACHMENT 1