HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Exparte Contacts Policy
CITY CLERK
File # DGJ[][Q]-[2d~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 20, 2005
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ex parte Contacts Policy
Report Prepared by Elizabeth H Silver, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Proposed Resolution Pennitting Ex parte Contacts in Quasi-
Judicial Proceedings (Option I)
2, Proposed Resolution Prohibiting Ex parte Contacts in Quasi-
Judicial Proceedings (Option 2)
3. List of Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
RECOMMENDATION:
r//
1. Receive Staff presentation.
2. Receive pub1ic comments,
3, Deliberatc
4, Adopt Resolution lor 2, or provide direction,
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Nonc,
DESCRIPTION:
Ex parte contacts are communications or other information received outside the hearing process
that are relevant in an adjudicatory matter before city officials, Ex parte contacts can also include site
visits made by city officials outside the hearing process, No state statutes regulate ex parte contacts in
administrative proceedings ofJoca] governing bodies, Additionally, the Municipal Code and City policies
are silent as to ex parte contacts, Y ct, as is discussed below, ex parte contacts can result in constitutional
due process issues and create the appearance of unfairness in City administrative proceedings. In order to
avoid confusion and the appearance of impropriety, the City may wish to provide guidance to officia]s
with regards to ex parte contacts through the adoption of the proposed ex parte contacts policy,
-----------------------~---_.~~--------------------------------------------~~~------------~~------------------
COpy TO:
Page 1 01'6
ITEMNO._~.~
Why should the City consider adoptíni a Policy Re¡:arding Ex tJarte Contacts?
Both the United States and California Constitutions protect against the deprivation of procedural
due process rights of parties in administrative proceedings where a property right is at stake, (U.S. Const"
14th amend" § I; Cal. Consl., art, I, § 7.) California law extends procedural due process rights for parties
to administrative proceedings further than does federal law, (See Lockheed Shipbuilding and
Construction Co, (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 776, 780-81.) Due process before an administrative body
requires a fair and impartial hearing before a neutral and unbiased decision-maker, (Nightlife Partners,
Ltd, v, City of Beverly Hills (2003) 108 Cal.AppAtlt 8J, 90 (Nightlife Partners),)
Tn fact, due process not only requires a fair and impartial hearing, it requires the appearance of a
fair and impartial hearing, (ibid,) A California Appeals Court has held that the appearance of impartiality
is especially important in administrative hearings due to the "broad applicability of administrative
hearings to the various rights and responsibilities of citizens and businesses, and the undeniable public
interest in fair hearings in the administrative adjudication arena," (Ibid.) The court reasoned that
administrative hearings often affeet significant rights and serve as the first level of adjudicatory review.
(Ibid.)
Even before such cases broadening the concept of due process, the courts had held that due process
requires that the decision must be based on the official record in the case. Thus, one court held that
reliancc on information obtained from discussions with the parties outside ofthe hearing was improper
because it resulted in an unfair hearing. (See Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Burlingame (1959) 170
Ca1.App.2d 637,645-47.)
It is wel1~settled that due process protections do not attach in all administrative proceedings.
(Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 (Horn).) Rather, due process is guaranteed only in
administrative quasi-judicial proceedings, and not in quasi-legislative proceedings. (Ibid.)
Quasi-judicial proceedings involve an adjudicative function wherein city officials serve in a judge-
like capacity, The purpose of a quasi-judicial proceeding is to apply a legislative rule to an existing set of
facts. (Horn, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 613; Slrumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.
(1974) II Cal.3d 28, 35, n.2 (Strumsky).)
Quasi-judicial proceedings most often arisc in the context of an appeal from the Planning
Commission to the City Counci1. For examplc, Planning Commission actions on site development revicw
permits, conditional usc pennits, variances, and tentative subdivision maps can be appealed to the Council
and all these are quasi-judicial actions. However, the Dublin Municipal Code provides for many other
quasi-judicial proceedings. (See Attachment 3 for a List of Quasi"Judicial Proceedings provided in the
Dublin Municipal Code.)
Quasi-legislative proceedings are those in which city officials serve in a policy-making capacity.
The purpose of a quasi-legislative proceeding is to create a rule of general applicability for future
guidance. (Horn, supra. 24 Cal.3d at p. 613; Strumsky, supra, II Ca1.3d at 35, n.2.) As compared to a
case-specific quasi-judicial decision, a quasi-legislative proceeding has a much broader scope that applics
to future cases. Quasi-legislative proceedings in the City include, but are not limitcd to, actions on
general plan amendments, specific plan amcndmcnts, zoning decisions and development agreements.
Page 2 of6
It is notable that the State Administrative Procedure Act (AP A) seeks to ensure fair and impartial
adjudicatory proceedings by prohibiting all ex parte contacts. Government Code § 11430,10. Although
the AP A does not apply to local governments, a recent California Appeals Court decision used the
provisions of the AP A as thc standard for imposing due process protections in an administrative
proceeding. (Nightlife Partners. supra, ] 08 CaJ.AppAth at pp. 9] -92.) Still, in Flagstad v. City of San
Mateo (1957) 156 Cal. App.2d 138, 141, the Court upheld a city council's decision to grant a variance for
construction and operation of a service station, even though the councilmen had visited the proposed site
outside the administrative proceeding. The Court held that the councilmen had fully disclosed the views
from their indcpcndcnt invcstigation on the record, and persons protesting the variance were given the
opportunity to challenge these views. (Ibid,)
Thus, the current state of the law appears to be that ex parte contacts are pennissible provided that
the naturc of thc contacts is disclosed on thc rccord of the proceeding so that the parties have an
opportunity to rebut or otherwise provide their views on the information obtained from thc contacts.
What Options does the City have in Adoptinl! an .Ex tJarte Contacts Policv?
Given the state of the law, the Council may wish to consider the following two options when
considering the adoption of an ex parte contacts policy.
I. First, the City may permit ex parte contacts and require city officials to report these contacts on
the record at a quasHudicial proceeding. (See Attachment 1.)
Pennitting ex parte contacts imposes no limits on city officials and is therefore an easily-applied
rule. Additional1y, city officials would not need to avoid contacts regarding pending adjudicatory
hearings. The disclosure of ex parte contacts facilitates a more transparent hearing process and overall
fairness because the contact is disclosed on the record at the commencement of the hearing. However,
this policy provides less legal protection from charges of bias or unfairness than the second option.
Furthermorc, the accuracy of the disclosurc of the contact is dependent on the recolle"iion of the City
offi.cial and thus vulnerable to a challenge as an inaccurate or incomplete disclosurc.
2. Second, the City may prohibit ex parte contacts and require city officials to report any such
contacts on the record at a quasi-judicial proceeding. (Sce Attachment2.)
Prohibiting all ex parte contacts provides city officials with a bright-line rule in defining the
communication they may have with the public and involved parties regarding a pending quasi-judicial
proceeding. A prohibition on eX parte contacts fosters trust bctween the public and city officials and will
prevent accusations of bias or unfairness. Although the ban sacrifices the valuable communication
bctwcen a governing body and its constitucnts, this option goes the farthest toward assuring fair]y-
conducted hearings. Finally, this option provides the most amount of protection from charges of bias or
untìlirness, thereby reducing the possibility of litigation.
What communications are covered bv the Proposed Ex varte Contacts Policy Options?
Th.e Proposed Ex parte Contacts Policy options would apply to contacts such as individual
conversations, written communications, electronic mails, telephonc calls, and visits to sites that are the subject
of a quasi -judicial proceeding.
Page 301'6
Thc Proposed Ex parte Contacts Policy options would not apply to communications made on the
record at the proceeding.
In all options, in the event that information is received outside the proceeding, the information
must be discJosed on the record at the proceeding.
To whom would the Proposed Ex tJarte Contacts Policv options applv'?
The Ex parte Contacts Policy options would apply to all city officials that preside over quasi-
judicial proceedings, including, but not limited to, members of the City Council, members of the Planning
Commission, the Zoning Administrator, the City Manager or designee, and any other city employee or
officer that acts as a decision maker in a quasi-judicial proceeding.
An A¡;¡endas Should Include Time for Officials to Disclose anv Ex Parte Contacts
We recommend each agenda that includes a quasi-judicial item include a timc for officials to
disclose any ex parte contacts the member may have had, This will be a reminder to officials to disclose
any such contacts. Each agenda would include a statement such as the following prior to the Staff
prcsentation: "Disclosure of ex parte contacts (persons involved in ex parte contact, the content of the ex
parte contact (what information was provided, what was discussed, what was said), when the ex parte
contact occurred and where the ex parte contact occurred)."
Tf an ex parte contact has been made, the minimum amount of disclosure required includes the
persons involved in the ex parte contact, the contcnt of the ex parte contact (e.g., what information was
provided, what was discussed, what was said), when the ex parte contact occurred and where the ex parte
contact occurred, A good way to remember this is "who/what/when/where".
To What Proceedings would the Proposed Ex TJarte Contacts Policy options apply?
To detennine when the Proposal Ex parte Contacts Policy applies, it is important to distinguish
between quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative proceedings. The Proposed Policy options only apply to
quasi-judicial proceedings. The Policy options do not apply to quasi-legislative proceedings.
Becausc a quasi-judicial proceeding may render a decision that deprives the party before it of a
property interest, the government must provide due process protections. (Horn, supra, 24 Ca1.3d at pp,
612-13.) Conversely, a quasi-Jegislative proceeding does not implicate due process protections, because
there is no concern for a deprivation of a property interest. (Ibid.)
Some proceedings may defy characterization as either a pure quasi-judicial or pure quasi-
lcgislativc proceeding. When a proceeding involves both adjudicativc and legislative elements, it may be
characterized as a mixed quasi-judiciallquasi-legislative proceeding:
For purposes of the Proposed Policy options, mixed quasi-judicial/quasi-Iegislative proceedings
are treated as quasi-legislative proceedings, The quasi-legislative function of a mixed proceeding is of
foremost importance because the adjudication of the case cannot be decided until the legislation which
applies to the case is settled. . Therefore, the primary element of a mixed procecding is lcgislative, and the
Ex parte Contacts Policy would not apply. Mixed quasi-judiciallquasi-Iegislative proceedings in the City
Page 4 of 6
include, but are not limited to, a site development permit or conditional use pennit approval that is
contingent upon a General Plan amendment or a rezoning.
For example, the SOITento at Dublin Ranch Area F project included both quasi-judicial and quasi-
legislative actions. On September 13, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Master Tentative Tract
Maps for Area F West (Tract 7641) and Area F East (Tract 7651), for the Sorrento at Dublin Ranch Area
F project. (Planning Commission Reso, 05-52.) This vesting tentative map action constitutes a quasi-
judicial proceeding. However, this tentative map approval was contingent upon the City Council's
approval to amend the Planned Development for Dublin Ranch Area F North, to increase the number of
units pennitted under the Plann.ed Development. (City Council Ord. 24-05.) Because the Sorrento at
Dublin Ranch Area F project involved a quasi-judicial action contingent upon a quasi-legislative action, it
would be treated as quasi-legislative; thus, the Ex Parte Contacts Policy would not apply.
What if the Prohibition on ExtJarte Contacts 0l'tion (Attachment2) is adonted and is violated?
Tf a city officer engages in ex parte contacts with a party to a quasi-judicial proceeding or
inadvertently learns of information regarding the quasi-judicial proceeding, any issue regarding the ex
parte contacts may be cured through disclosure on the record at a subsequent proceeding. (Flagstad v.
City of San Mateo, supra, 156 Cal.App.2d at pp. 141-42.) Such disclosure on the record CUTes the Ex
parte Contacts Policy violation because it affords aU partics the opportunity to hear and respond to the
communication before the body. (Ibid.)
The Policy also providcs that ifthc Policy is violated, it shaU not constitute independent grounds
for invalidating the decision. Despite this lan6'Uage in the Policy, it would not prevent the parties from
arguing that due process was violated,
What if a Court Finds an Tmproper Ex tJarte Contact has been made?
As elected officials responsible to an clectorate, it seems counterintuitive to adopt a policy which
prohibits communication between city officials and city residents regarding pending quasi-judicial
proceedings. However, a breach of due process rights for pcrsons involved in a pending quasi-judicial
proceeding can have serious consequences, Two recent Court of Appeals due process cases invalidated
decisions from administrative hearings where the hearing officials did not provide the "appearance of
fairness." (Nightlife Partners, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 90; Quintero v. City of Santa Ana (2004) 114
Cal.AppAth 810, 817 (Quintero).) AdditionaUy, the Court in both decisions awarded attorney's fees to the
plaintiff asserting a due process violation. (Nightlife Partners, supra, 108 Cal.AppAth at p. 99; Quintero,
supra, 114 Cal.AppAth at p. 818.)
Although both decisions addressed due process claims arising ITom the commingling of advisory
and prosccutorial functions by city attorncys, the reasoning of the cases is applicable to ex parte contacts
by city officials. In Nightlife Partners, the Court held that "due process in an administrative hearing also
demands an appearance of tìlirness and the absence of even a probability of outside influence on the
adjudication," (108 CalAppAth at p. 90.) It would seem that such "outside influence" might be inferred
from a city official's ex parte contacts outside the quasi-judicial proceeding. In Quintero, the Court hcld
that the City "must exercise vigilance and caution, to ensure not only fairness, but the appearance of
fairness." (114 Cal.AppAth at p. 817.) These due process cascs require the city officials to be impartial
and fair, as weU as appear impartial and fair, when making decisions in administrative hearings.
Page 5 of6
Finally, good public policy would seem to require that city officials execute their adjudicatory
duties with fairness and impartia1ity. Prohibiting ex parte contacts fosters trust between city officials and
city residents, and provides a clear rationale for why a city official must refrain from communicating
about a pending adjudication.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council hear Staff's presentation, consider any comments from the
pub1ic, deliberate and adopt Option lor 2, or provide other direction Staff also recommends that the
Council direct the Staff to include a time to disclose any contacts on any agenda that includes a quasi-
judicial item.
786976-1; 114,1001
Page 6 01'6
\ lb
OPTION 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING EX PARTE CONTACTS IN
QUASI-mDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator,
thc City Manager or designee, and other City officers conduct a number of quasi-judicial
hearings in the course of pertorming their duties;
WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions
impose certain requirements on local agencies that conduct such hearings, including a
requirement that decision makers consider only that evidence that is presented at the hearing;
WHEREAS, members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning
Administrator, and the City Manager or designee could potentially receivc information
pertinent to quasi-judicial hearings outside of the formal hearing, which information is known
generally as "ex parte contacts"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has detennined that it would be prudent to have a policy
concerning ex parte contacts in quasi-judicial proceedings that applies to the City Council, the
Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator, the City Manager or designec, and other
City Officials that make decisions in quasi-judicial proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as
follows:
I. Purpose. Thc purpose of this policy is to ensure that decisions of the City of Dublin in
quasi-judicial administrative ptoceedings are conducted in an impartial manner and comply
with the requirements of Due Process under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Statc ofCalifomia.
2. Policy. City Officials shall permit Contacts related to quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Disclosure. City Officials shall disclose such Contacts on the record ofthe quasi-judicial
proceeding, thereby affording interested persons the opportunity to hear and respond to the
Contact. In preparing agendas for quasi-judicial hearings, City staff shall include an item for
disclosure of ex parte Contacts prior to the opening of the public hearing.
4. Application, The Ex parte Contacts Policy shall apply only to quasi-judicial proceedings
and shalJ not apply to quasi-legislative or mixed quasi-judiciallquasi-Iegislative proceedings.
Page 1 of 3
::t:T€t\\ '3. ~
\ ë...-~zD-DS- i
ATI'A£;HM ENT
~CJD l
5. Effect of Violation. A violation of the Ex parte Contacts Policy shall not constitute
independent grounds to invalidate any decision by City Officials.
6. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this policy:
"Contacts" means the receipt of any information outside a quasi-judicial proceeding
that is relevant in a quasi-judicial proceeding before City Officials. Contacts may
include, but are not limited to, conversations, written communications, electronic
mails, telephone calls, and visits to sites that are the subject of a quasi-judicial
proceeding.
"City Officials" means the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning
Administrator, the City Manager or designee, and any other city employee or officer
that acts as a decision maker in a quasHudicial proceeding.
"Disclosure" means, at a minimum, the persons involved in the ex parte contact, the
content of the ex parte contact (e,g" what infonnation was provided, what was
discussed, what was said), when the ex parte contact occurred and where the ex parte
contact occurred.
"Quasi-judicial proceeding" means a City proceeding in which a City Official applies
cxisting legal standards to a particular set of facts that affects an individual or
individuals.
"Quasi-legislative proceeding" means a City proceeding in which City Officials
create a rulc of general applicability for future guidance. Quasi-legislative
proceedings in the City of Dublin include, but are not limited to, actions on
general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, and zoning decisions.
"Mixed quasi-judiciallquasi-Iegislative proceeding" means a City proceeding
involving both adjudicative and legislative elements. Mixed quasi-judicial/quasi-
legislative proceedings in the City of Dublin include, but are not limited to, sitc
development pennit approval that is contingent upon a zoning ordinance
amendment.
7. Effective Date, This Resolution shall take effect immcdiatcly.
8. Severabtltty Clause. The provisions of this Resolution are severable and if any
provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereofis held megal, invalid, unconstitutional,
or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such megality, invalidity,
unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining
provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof ofthc ordinance or their
applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Page 2 of 3
3~Î
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of December 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
793733-t; tt4,toOl
Page 3 of 3
YGò'
OPTION 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING EX PARTE CONTACTS IN
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council, thc Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator,
the City Manager or designee, and other City officers conduct a number of quasi-judicial
hearings in the course of performing their duties;
WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions
impose certain requirements on local agencies that conduct such hearings, including a
requirement that decision makers considcr only that evidence that is presented at the hearing;
WHEREAS, members of the City Coundl, the Planning Commission, the Zoning
Administrator, and the City Manager or designee could potentia1ly receive information
pertinent to quasi-judicial hcarings outside of the formal hearing, which information is known
generally as "ex parte contacts"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determincd that it would be prudent to have a policy
concerning ex parte contacts in quasi-judicial proceedings that applies to the City Council, the
Planning Commission, the Zolling Administrator, the City Manager or designce, and other
City Officials that make decisions in quasi-judicial proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as
follows:
I. Purpose. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that decisions of the City of Dublin in
quasi-judicial administrative proceedings are conducted in an impartial manner and comply
with the requirements of Due Process under the Constitutions of the United States and the
State of California.
2, Poltcy, City Officials shall not intentiona1ly make or rcccive Contacts related to quasi-
judicial proceedings,
3. Disclosure. Tn thc event that Contacts are nonetheless recei ved, City Officials shall
disclosc such Contacts on the record of the quasHudicial proceeding, thcrcby affording
interested persons thc opportunity to hear and respond to the Contact. Tn preparing agendas
for quasi-judicial hearings, City staff sha1l include an item for disclosure of ex parte Contacts
prior to the opening of the public hearing.
4. Application. The Ex parte Contacts Policy shall apply only to quasi-judicial proccedings
and shall not apply to quasi-legislative or mixed quasi~judicial/quasi-legislative proceedings.
ATT1\CnMt~NT
L
Page I of 3
5~l
5. Effect of Violation. A violation of the Ex parte Contacts Policy shall not constitute
indcpcndcnt grounds to invalidate any decision by City Officials.
6. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this policy:
"Contacts" means the receipt of any information outside a quasi-judicial proceeding
that is relevant in a quasi-Judicial procceding before City Officials. Contacts may
include, but are not limited to, conversations, written communications, electronic
mails, telephone calls, and visits to sites that are the subject of a quasi-judicial
proceeding.
"City Officials" means the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning
Administrator, the City Manager or designee, and any other city employee or oftìcer
that acts as a decision maker in a quasi-judicial proceeding.
"Disclosure" means, at a minimum, the persons involved in the ex parte contact, the
content of the ex parte contact (e.g., what information was provided, what was
discussed, what was said), when the ex parte contact occurred and where the ex parte
contact occurred.
"Quasi-judicial proceeding" means a City proceeding in which a City Official applies
existing legal standards to a particular set of facts that affects an individual or
individuals.
"Quasi-legislative proceeding" means a City proceeding in which City Oftìcials
create a rule of general applicability for future guidance, Quasi-legislative
proceedings in the City of Dublin include, but are not limited to, actions on
general plan amendments, specific plan amendments, and zoning decisions.
"Mixed quasi-judicial/quasi-Iegislative proceeding" means a City proceeding
involving both adjudicative and legislative elements. Mixed quasi-judiciallquasi-
legislative procccdings in the City of Dublin include, but are not limited to, site
development pennit approval that is contingent upon a 7:Oning ordinance
amendment.
7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take etTect immediately.
8. Severabtlity Clause. Thc provisions of this Resolution are severable and if any
provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional,
or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invaJidity,
unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining
provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the ordinance or their
applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Page 2 of 3
/.Q~ Î
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _ day of Deccmber 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clcrk
793732-1; tt4.1001
Page 3 of 3
7 Db -¡
A TT ACHMENT 3
List of Quasi-Judicial Proceedings provided in the Dublin Municipal Code
Quasi-judicial proceedings in the city include, but are not limited to, actions on
site development review pennits, conditional use permits, variances, and tentative
subdivision maps, City Council hearings to close hazardous driveways; City Councilor
Board of Appeals interpretations of the Fire Code; City Manager hearings to abate
abandoned vehicles and appeals to City Council; Tax Administrator hearings for failure
to collect or report transient occupancy taxes and appeals to City Council; Chief of Police
hearings to suspend or revoke fortunctcl1ing permits and appeals to City Council; City
Council hearings to review permits for parades; City Council hearings for delinquent
payments of solid waste management services; City Manager review of recycling facility
pennits and appeals to City Council; City Council review of revocation of permits under
solid waste management ordinances; City Manager hearings to suspend or revoke animal
fanciers permits and appeals to City Council; City Manager hearings to abate a vicious
dog and appeals to City Council; City Manager hcarings to suspend or revoke pennits for
cxotie animals and appeals to City Council; City Manager hearings to suspend or revoke
licenses to operate bingo games and appeals to City Council; City Council hearings on
appeal regarding public dancing permit issuance or conditions of issuance or the denial or
revocation of such pennits by the Chief of Police; City Council hearings of
adminsitrative decisions made by City Manager under the smoking pollution control
ordinances; City Council hearings of decisions made by City Manager under heritage tree
ordinances; City Manager hearings to determine whether property consititutes a public
nuisance and to propose rehabilitation, repair, removal or demolition of such property and
appeals to City CouneiJ; City Manager hearings regarding notices and orders to abate
graffitti on private proprety and appeals to City Council; City Council hearings to
determine whether weeds and refuse constitute a public nuisiance; City Council hearings
to review City Manager's orders to abate fly nusinance; City Manager hearings regarding
impoundment of newsracks; City Council hearings regarding initial application of cable
television and communication sysytems franchise applications; City Council hearings to
review Chief of Police's decision to deny or revok a peddler permits; City Manager
hcarings regarding pennits for massage establishments and massage services; City
Manager hearings to review City Engineer's decision on encroachments; City Council
hearings regarding changes in street names; City Council hearings regarding
establishment of underground utility distribution facilities district; City Council hearings
to suspend or revoke grading pennits; City Council hearings regarding issuance, denial,
cancellation, or conditioning of a permits under watercourse protection ordinances; City
Council hearings regarding variances and violations of flood control ordinances; City
Council hearings regarding application of building regualtion administration ordinances;
City Council hearings regarding application of waste management plan ordinances;
Alameda County Health Omcer or City Council hearings to detennine whether there is a
public nuisance and wether to abate the nuisance; Well Standards Advisory Board or City
Council hearings regarding violations under thc wells ordinances; and Planning
Commision hearings and City Council hearings regarding proposed right-of-way lines.
794878-[: 114,IOO[
- I -
A'I'TACHMENT "3