CORRESPONDANCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 10 number of opponents as early as the initial notice of proceeding, which received 163 comment letters. For example, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work-study session to overview the Project. As part of this session, the Planning Commission received numerous comments, largely opposed, including thirty- two (32) verbal comments, with three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition; and nine (9) written comments, with one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition. The opponents to the Project have only increased over time. At the latest Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2019, sixty-two (62) speakers expressed opposition and only two (2) expressed support of the project. In addition, ninety-eight (98) individuals submitted written comments, with ninety-four (94) in opposition and only four (4) in support. Upon submittal of any such referendum, the City will have a mandatory duty to process and submit any such initiative and referendum measures. (Doran v. Cassidy (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 574 [city clerk]; Elec. Code, § 4008; Farley v. Healey (1967) 67 Cal.2d 325 [charter of the City and County of San Francisco]; Elec. Code, § 180; see also Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 564, fn. 2.). The cost to the City and its taxpayers to process such a referendum could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 6. THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE. The requirement for meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard extend to rezonings and other legislative acts. This is particularly true where property rights are affected. As noted above, the value of the impact to the neighboring homes may be substantial. Thus, adjacent properties are entitled to due process notice. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires "at a minimum ... that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing..." (Mullane v. Central Hanover Co, (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) The "root requirement' of due process is "that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." (Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 548-549; Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371, 379.) Notice and an opportunity to be heard are prerequisites. (Anderson Nat. Bank v. Lockett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 240-247; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612-615; Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517; Kennedy v. City of Hayward (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 953.) State and local law therefore require valid notice of the hearing be given to nearby property owners. (Gov. Code, §§ 65901, 65905; FCZO, § 877(13)(5)(c).) For notice to be valid, "notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. [Citations.]" (Horn v. County of 4308.101 / 8504501.2