Cohan

Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1200·30 Cal. App. 4th 547·35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 782·94 Daily Journal DAR 16709·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9030
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 1994B077680California4,505 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

Appellants spent 15 years attempting to develop a parcel of real property in the City of Thousand Oaks (City). After many denials of their applications and modification of the plans, the planning commission finally approved the proposed subdivision map and development applications with the imposition of approximately 500 conditions. The city council (Council) appealed the decision to itself and, after a public hearing, overruled the planning commission’s decision. We hold that a series of errors by the Council denied appellants both procedural and substantive due process.

Albert Cohan, Nedjatollah Cohan and Lida Cohan appeal from a ruling of the Ventura County Superior Court denying their petition for writ of mandate. They contend that: 1) the Council violated numerous procedural and due process safeguards in purporting to “appeal” the planning commission’s decision; 2) the meeting during which the Council granted its own appeal did not afford appellants a meaningful hearing; 3) the resolution adopting the Council’s decisions of July 28,1992, was untimely and thus void, and 4) the errors were not harmless.

Facts

Appellants own 47 acres of land in the City which they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.