CORRESPONDENCE - #25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

During the October 25 hearing, the questions posed by Commissioner Ramos were alarmingly similar to the recommendations posed in the LHA and Hospital Letters. Case in point: the LHA and Hospital Letters asked the Commission to apply the HOO "to all residential developments in the City" and Commissioner Ramos's first question to Staffwas why ;`Staff is not recommending that the entire City be an applicable area under the HOOT' (Hearing Video, 22:30.) Moreover, whereas the LHA and Hospital Letters both asked for the in -lieu fee to be increased "from $5 to $15 per sq ft," Commissioner Ramos asked to increase the "range of the in -lieu fee" from $5 to $15 to $10 to $15. In addition, two public comments during the Commission's hearing were provided by employees of LHA and colleagues of Commissioner Ramos. One of these public comments was in Spanish, from Araceli Robles on behalf of the LHA. (Hearing Video, 1-05-20.) Her comments were then roughly translated and summarized in English for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Ramos then inappropriately inserted herself into the conversation and stated "I can provide support if you would like" (Hearing Video, 1:07.13). Unprompted, she then delivered to the Commission even more information about Robles's concerns, going above and beyond this initial translation, providing what appeared to be direct quotations from Robles's statement, given just seconds before (Hearing Video, 1:08:20). Another public comment from the Kennedy Commission mirrored Commissioner Ramos' desire to increase the in lieu fee and tracked her question about applying the HOO throughout the City. As if all this were not already enough to disqualify Commissioner Ramos from voting on any HOO amendment, she then (1) personally initiated what was likely a pre -written motion; and (2) cast the deciding vote (4-3) on it. It will come as no surprise that the language of the motion closely matched the suggestions from the LHA Letter, the Hospital Letter, and the two public comments by her colleagues. Again, this was no coincidence. The law with respect to biased decisionmakers is clear. Due process requires that a decisionmaker be fair and impartial. The law does not require proof of actual bias. Rather, it is sufficient to invalidate a decision if "an unacceptable probability of actual bias" by the municipal decisionmaker is established. (Woodys Group,, Inc. v City of'Neiiport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022.) When it is established that a biased decisionmaker participated in a decision, the appropriate remedy is to return the matter to the body for a rehearing without biased decisionmaker's participation. Because of her close ties to organizations and callers actively participating in advocacy regarding the HOO, in addition to her actions on the night of the hearing, it is beyond doubt that Commissioner Ramos harbors "an unacceptable probability of actual bias" on the HOO. (Woodv's Group,supra, 233 Cal.AppAth at p. 1022.) In addition, Commissioner Ramos' s alternative motion had likely been written out beforehand, wholly belying her own self-serving comment at the hearing that LHA's position on the HOO "will not influence my vote tonight." Her actions are constitutionally unacceptable and have "crossed the line into advocacy." (Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC v City oj'Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 974.) Commissioner Rai -nos should have recused herself from the Commission's hearing on October25; because she did not, the Commission must reconsider amendments to the HOO without a