City attorney’s office briefs commissioners on due‑process rules for quasi‑judicial hearings

Alexander Abbey, assistant city attorney for the City of Santa Clara, gave commissioners a detailed refresher on due‑process principles that apply to quasi‑judicial public hearings and offered practical guidance to reduce legal risk.

Abbey opened by quoting the constitutional standard: “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and said the city has embedded due‑process protections into its code of ethics for hearings that affect property rights. He distinguished quasi‑judicial actions — for example conditional use permits, variances and subdivision maps — from legislative decisions such as general plan amendments, and said the protections are stricter for quasi‑judicial matters because they affect specific property interests.

Abbey walked commissioners through the usual due‑process elements staff handles: mailed and posted notice, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, staff‑prepared findings and an impartial decision maker. He reiterated common hearing practices: applicants generally receive up to 10 minutes for initial presentations and five minutes for rebuttal, while members of the public receive shorter time allotments. “Findings are legal footprints that local officials leave to explain how they applied the facts to establish standards and arrived at the decision,” Abbey said, explaining why findings are essential when an administrative decision might later be reviewed by a court.

The presentation summarized a string of court decisions in which courts found unlawful bias or unacceptable probability of bias by decision makers. Abbey reviewed the 2004 NASHIA v. City of Los Angeles decision (newsletter and neighborhood‑meeting statements demonstrated bias), the 2015 Woody’s Group v. City of Newport Beach decision (email to city clerk and prepared statements that signaled a preexisting position), the 2020 Petrovic Development Co. v. City of Sacramento decision (council member distributed talking points and led effort to overturn a prior approval), and Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (personal animus that included harassment supported a conflict‑of‑interest finding). He said these cases illustrate how statements or actions outside a hearing — or carefully worded written statements announcing intent — can require a new hearing or subject the city to damages.

Abbey gave commissioners practical rules of thumb: ask questions tied to the legal findings for the item before you; avoid asking applicants to justify business success or predicting their profitability for approval decisions; disclose and document ex parte contacts and any new facts learned so all parties can respond; and avoid expressing a definitive view on a specific project before the close of the public hearing. He advised caution when speaking to the press about projects pending before the commission and recommended commissioners record interviews for their own records if they choose to speak off the dais.

Why it matters: Abbey said even careful commissioners will be accused of bias at times, but minimizing extraneous statements and tying questions to findings strengthens the administrative record and reduces legal exposure. He closed with the practical admonition: “Always do right. This will gratify some and astonish the rest.” The commission had time for questions after the presentation; no formal action was taken on the study session.