Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Story Reply in Support of Motion For Stay
Story Reply in Support of Motion For Stay
Defendant.
/
Plaintiff Amnesia International, LLC d/b/a Story Nightclub (“Story”), by and through
undersigned counsel, hereby replies in support of its Motion to Extend (the “Motion”) this Court’s
entered on March 3, 2023. Contrary to Defendant City of Miami Beach’s claim in its Response to
the Motion, Story does not seek a “second bite of the apple” by filing its Motion. Rather, as stated
therein, Story merely seeks to preserve the status quo pending resolution of its appeal to the Third
District Court of Appeal. This Court properly may grant such relief.
A stay is warranted here because Story has established both elements for such relief.
Regarding success on the merits, the record evidence demonstrates that the challenged ordinance
is arbitrary and capricious for a number of reasons including the City’s rejection of the City
Attorney’s advice. Story cited numerous cases to the Court standing for the proposition that a
municipality or governing body acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it rejects or disregards the
advice of its attorney. See T-Mobile S. LLC v. City of Margate, No. 10-CV-60029, 2011 WL
1303898 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2011); Grumman Ecosystems Corp. v. Gainesville-Alachua Cnty. Reg'l
Elec. Water & Sewer Facilities Bd., 402 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. Fla. 1975); Chandler v. City of
Vestavia Hills Planning & Zoning Com'n, 959 So. 2d 1124 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006); Furlong
Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. 2006). Additional authorities support
Plaintiff’s argument on this point. See e.g. Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223
(Ct. App. 1996) (“In light of the city attorney's opinion, the Council did not act irrationally . . . .”);
Esquibel v. City of Santa Fe, 2009 WL 6560437 (N.M. Ct. App. June 17, 2009) (challenged
legislation was not arbitrary and capricious where evidence showed that municipality solicited,
discussed and followed the advice of the city attorney); McKenzie v. City of Ocean Springs, 758
So. 2d 1028 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate court properly may review city attorney statements
to the commission regarding legislation challenged as arbitrary and capricious); Mission Springs,
Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wash. 2d 947, 968 (1998) (finding that council members acted
arbitrarily where “City Attorney Tillotson warned them that if they acted to deny the building
permit or to initiate rezoning to make the proposed project improper or illegal, there was a
substantial probability that a court would overturn that action and hold them liable for the resulting
The Court’s Order does not address whether the challenged ordinance is arbitrary and
capricious notwithstanding the substantial record evidence demonstrating same. This is despite the
clear language in Membreno v. Ciy of Hialeah that makes clear arbitrary and capricious legislation
by definition cannot survive rational basis review. See Silvio Membreno & Florida Ass'n of
Vendors, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 188 So. 3d 13, 21 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“A law bearing a
rational basis to a legitimate legislative purpose is, by definition, not discriminatory, arbitrary, or
-2-
oppressive, as those words are used in the test. Conversely, a law that is discriminatory, arbitrary,
Courts routinely analyze whether elected officials followed their professional staff’s
advice, especially the advice of counsel, when deciding whether the governmental body acted
arbitrarily. Such evidence is especially probative when the city attorney recommends an alternative
MR. PAZ: Now, there could be a good policy reason or an exception, and we've
certainly heard, you know, sympathetic commentary today, but it is -- it is an
additional challenge, and we will be challenged. There is a court reporter here --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah.
MR. PAZ: -- getting ready, you know, for the injunction that will soon follow if
you adopt this.
Feb. 22, 2023 City Commission Hr’g Tr. at 35:2-9.
There is no dispute that Story will suffer substantial and irreparable harm the moment the
challenged ordinance takes effect. Accordingly, Story respectfully requests an extension of the
DORTA LAW
334 Minorca Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: 305-441-2299
Telecopier: 305-441-8849
[email protected]
[email protected]
-3-
[email protected]
1101 Brickell Avenue
Suite S-700
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 204-9808
TODD R. FRIEDMAN, PA
1101 Brickell Avenue
Suite S-700
Miami, Florida 33131
786-536-7190
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 14, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
filed in the Florida eFiling Portal and was thereby served by email to Defendant’s counsel for,
Joseph Serota, Esq. ([email protected]) and Eric Hockman, Esq. ([email protected]).
/s/ Sean A. Burstyn
Sean A. Burstyn, Esq.
-5-
Composite Exhibit 1
Kurtz, Lauren 3/14/2023
For Educational Use Only
& *,
+
( * # & 4(
* #
&
& & $ & /
'
#* *
#
:3%.;I4?>L;;4;<??L;<4;H #
& +
&#
+
?CLF4?A= & &
&+*
!"# # J* (& $
%
#
*( + *
*
# # #
( #
@ *+ 4@
">@ #
+ /
D
+& &
1
3
*
& *
$ %
;FI %< ?;;; " ?< C4(
#
*(+*#
*
* & B* #
( #
@*+4@">@
D
&
D
*
J* *
# J* # D
1
+*
:3%.?E>A=
#* $5* # D
# *
( #
&
#
# I $ B* # # 4(
+
(
J* (&4(
1 4 *
&+/
(
5#*&0*
>$
? 4(
5 # *& 0* :3% .
;<= %! /.3$./
3
3
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV
"
#$%&'%'()*+%%,
Kurtz, Lauren 3/14/2023
For Educational Use Only
This language is the genesis of the controversy. Grumman On July 29, 1975 Grumman notified EPA by mailgram that
contends that by such language Norflor attempted to limit its an appeal of its decision had been filed with the Comptroller
liability under the escrow fund to those elements of the filter General. The City and Norflor were not so notified by
system which the manufacturer would guarantee. Norflor Grumman, nor did EPA notify them of Grumman's appeal.
maintained that the language was inserted to strictly comply Instead, on July 31, 1975 EPA advised the City in writing that
with the requirement that any deviations from the bidding it was free to execute a contract with Norflor. The City entered
instructions, paragraph DF, be noted, and that it was intended into the contract on August 1, 1975. At the time of final
to assure the City that, despite Dravo's refusal to guarantee hearing, Norflor had incurred very substantial contractual
the entire filter system, Norflor would do so to the extent of commitments relating to its work on the wastewater treatment
$250,000 by providing the escrow fund. plant.
‘When notice is given the agency that a protest has been Had these violations by EPA come to light at an earlier stage
filed with the General Accounting Office, award shall not in this litigation, the Court might have been more disposed
be made prior to a ruling on the protest by the Comptroller to enjoin further construction of the project, pending the
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV
Chandler v. City of Vestavia Hills Planning and Zoning Com'n, 959 So.2d 1124 (2006)
Chandler v. City of Vestavia Hills Planning and Zoning Com'n, 959 So.2d 1124 (2006)
The Chandlers are individual residents of Vestavia Hills, and “ ‘YARD, SIDE A yard between the main building and
they reside on, and own, the property at issue in this case. The the side lot line and extending from the required front
Commission is a municipal planning commission organized yard to the required rear yard.’
under and pursuant to the provisions of § 11–52–1 et seq.,
Ala.Code 1975. The Commission's powers include the power “3. Article 6, Section 601 of the Zoning Ordinance
to review and approve subdivision proposals. provides that ‘the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
have the authority to approve irregularly shaped lots
The Chandlers proposed to subdivide their property into two having a minimum of 40 front footage, but all building
residential lots, one of which would be a “flag lot.” Testimony line restrictions shall remain in full force and effect on
at trial by Laurence Weygand, a civil engineer and surveyor, irregularly shaped lots unless otherwise approved by the
indicated that the Commission has approved various other Planning Commission.’ In my opinion, the Planning and
flag lots in the past. Zoning Commission has the authority to approve 40–foot
lots, but is not mandated to do so.
The Commission stated in its court filings that it adopted
the opinion of its legal counsel as a basis for denying “4. Section 3.15 of the Subdivision Regulations provides
the Chandlers' subdivision request. That opinion stated in ‘every lot shall abut on a public street.’ In my opinion, that
relevant part: means that the entire lot on the front boundary shall abut
a public street.
“In my judgment it is the intent of the Vestavia Hills
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, when read “5. I recognize that the written language of the Subdivision
together, that a front yard is a yard extending the full width Regulations and Zoning Ordinance does not expressly
of the front of a lot between the front (street) right of way prohibit flag lots.
line and the front building line. Therefore, it is my legal
“6. I also recognize, however, that the written language
opinion that flag lots are not permitted Under the Vestavia
of the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance
Hills Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
does not expressly permit flag lots.
“I base my legal opinion upon the following reasons:
“7. In my opinion, the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
“1. Both the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations when read together is for lots
Ordinance contemplate that a lot in a subdivision will have in subdivisions to be homogeneous in character. If flag
four boundaries, including front, rear, side and side. A lots were permitted, then in such event there would be no
flag lot would have six boundary lines, including rear, two uniformity in subdivisions. Therefore, flag lots were not to
fronts and three sides. be permitted in my judgment.
“2. Article 21 of the Vestavia Hills Zoning Ordinance “8. It is my opinion, based upon the reading of
provides the following definitions: the Subdivision Regulations, together with the Zoning
Ordinance, that both intend that the front yard of a lot is a
“ ‘YARD An open space between a building or structure yard extending the full width of the front of the lot between
and the adjoining lot lines, unoccupied and unobstructed the front (street) right-of-way line and the front building
*1127 by any structure from the ground upward. line. Therefore, flag lots are not permitted in my judgment.
“ ‘YARD, FRONT A yard extending across the front of “I feel that an ordinance can be drafted that prohibits flag
a lot between the side lot lines. On corner lots the front lots.”
yard shall be considered as parallel to the street upon
which the lot has its least dimension. The trial court's judgment stated, in part:
Chandler v. City of Vestavia Hills Planning and Zoning Com'n, 959 So.2d 1124 (2006)
Chandler v. City of Vestavia Hills Planning and Zoning Com'n, 959 So.2d 1124 (2006)
“Judicial review of a city planning commission's action “City of Huntsville v. Smartt, 409 So.2d 1353, 1357–58
is limited. Noojin v. Mobile City Planning Comm'n, (Ala.1982) (quoting Hughes v. Jefferson County Bd. of
480 So.2d 587 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). When a *1129 Educ., 370 So.2d 1034, 1037 (Ala.Civ.App.1979)).”
planning commission exercises control over subdivision
lands within a municipality it acts in an administrative Phase II, LLC v. City of Huntsville, 952 So.2d 1115, 1119
capacity. Boulder Corp. v. Vann, 345 So.2d 272 (Ala.1977). (Ala.2006). “The term ‘arbitrary and capricious' is a technical
legal phrase meaning an administrative action not supported
“ ‘There is no dispute that the proper standard of review by evidence or lacking a rational basis.” 73A C.J.S. Public
in cases based on an administrative agency's decision is Administrative Law and Procedure § 418 (2004) (footnote
whether that decision was arbitrary or capricious or was omitted).
not made in compliance with applicable law.
The Chandlers argue that the standard of review of the
“ ‘ “Our standard of review regarding administrative Commission's actions is in fact a two-step standard. The
actions is very limited in scope. We review the Chandlers claim that first this court must review whether
circuit court's judgment without any presumption of the Commission acted within the bounds of its “authority
correctness since that court was in no better position contained in the legislation authorizing it to act, as well as
than this court to review the agency decision. The any restrictions contained in its own regulations.” Following
special competence of the agency lends great weight this initial review, according to the Chandlers, a court
to its decision. That decision must be affirmed unless may then proceed to analyze the trial court's judgment as
arbitrary, capricious, or not made in compliance with to whether the decision of the Commission was arbitrary
applicable law. Neither the circuit court nor this and unreasonable. For these principles the Chandlers cite
court may substitute its judgment for that of the Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So.2d 305, 307 (Ala.1979).
administrative agency.” ’ However, Smith does not stand for such a proposition. In
fact, Smith merely states that a planning commission has no
“Ex parte City of Fairhope, 739 So.2d 35, 38 (Ala.1999),
discretion to disapprove a subdivision plan that conforms to
quoting State Dep't of Revenue v. Acker, 636 So.2d 470,
the existing regulations. Id. Rather than compelling a two-
473 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (citations omitted). A planning
step standard of review, our caselaw implies that when a
commission's decision should not be invalidated ‘unless it
planning commission does not approve a subdivision plan that
is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial
conforms to the regulations, the *1130 commission's actions
relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general
may be considered “arbitrary and unreasonable.” See Stanley,
welfare.’ Noojin, 480 So.2d at 588.”
775 So.2d at 228 (noting that “ ‘[t]here is no dispute that the
Stanley, 775 So.2d at 228. proper standard of review in cases based on an administrative
agency's decision is whether that decision was arbitrary or
“ ‘ “A determination ... is not ‘arbitrary’ or capricious or was not made in compliance with applicable
‘unreasonable’ where there is a reasonable justification law’ ” (quoting Ex parte City of Fairhope, 739 So.2d 35, 38
for its decision or where its determination is founded (Ala.1999))).
upon adequate principles or fixed standards. State
Department of Pensions and Security v. Whitney, 359 In making their substantive argument, the Chandlers rely
So.2d 810 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). primarily upon § 11–52–31, Ala.Code 1975, and Smith v.
Mobile, supra. Section 11–52–31, Ala.Code 1975, does not
“ ‘ “If reasonable minds may well be divided as to
specifically address the issue presented here, and Smith
the wisdom of [the] administrative board's actions, or
is distinguishable. In Smith, our supreme court reversed
there appears some reasonable basis for the classification
a trial court's judgment affirming the Mobile Planning
made by the board, such action is conclusive and the
Commission's denial of the plaintiff's request to subdivide
court will not substitute its judgment for that of the
his real property. Smith, 374 So.2d at 306–07. The Mobile
administrative body.” ’
Planning Commission's decision was based upon the fact that
Chandler v. City of Vestavia Hills Planning and Zoning Com'n, 959 So.2d 1124 (2006)
the subdivision plans would be “ ‘out of character with other (Tenn.Ct.App.2004) (not reported in S.W.3d), application
lots in the area.’ ” Smith, 374 So.2d at 307. The Mobile for permission to appeal denied March 21, 2005 (stating
Planning Commission argued that its decision was authorized that evidence of a commission's reliance on the advice of
by its regulations, and it argued that it had the discretion to a city attorney was more than adequate evidence *1131
deny the proposed subdivision under its enabling statute. Id. to support the trial court's conclusion that the decision
of the commission was neither arbitrary nor capricious);
Our supreme court held that it would not construe the see also McKenzie v. City of Ocean Springs, 758 So.2d
Mobile Planning Commission's regulations as giving that 1028 (Miss.Ct.App.2000)(holding that the city had not acted
commission discretion to take into account aesthetic factors arbitrarily and capriciously in granting a building permit
and to disapprove subdivisions when they are “ ‘out of when the zoning ordinance expressly permitted the use of the
character with other lots in the area.’ ” 374 So.2d at property for the proposed purpose, the city had considered the
309. In essence, our supreme court stated that the Mobile recommendation of the city attorney, and the use of a water
Planning Commission was wrong to deny the approval of area in front of the property was previously approved for the
the proposed subdivision on the ground that the subdivision proposed purpose by another state agency). Furthermore, we
was out of character with other lots in the area when that can hardly say that the trial court's denial of the Chandlers'
decision was “unrelated to [the subdivision's] conformance petition for a writ of mandamus was a clear abuse of its
with the [Mobile] Planning Commission's own regulations discretion. 2
and exceeded [the Commission's] statutory grant of power.”
Id. 2 Importantly, the Chandlers do not make any
argument alleging disparate treatment to this
In this case the trial court was presented with evidence
court; in other words, they do not argue that
indicating that the Commission did not act arbitrarily or
because other flag lots were approved in similar
capriciously and that it complied with applicable law.
situations the Commission's treatment of their
Although it is true that the zoning regulations do not
proposed subdivision is arbitrary. The Chandlers
specifically state whether flag lots are permitted, the
did, perhaps, lay the appropriate foundation for
Commission based its decision on the advice of its legal
such an argument at the trial-court level by
counsel and a reasonable interpretation of the planning
introducing evidence of the Commission's approval
regulations. Those planning regulations indicate that four-
of other flag lots, but the Chandlers do not rely on
sided lots are typical. A flag lot would have at least six sides.
that evidence to make such an argument in their
Additionally, a “front yard” is defined as “[a] yard extending
appeal to this court.
across the front of a lot between the side lot lines.” The city
attorney opined that a flag lot could not meet the definitional The Chandlers' second argument to this court is that the
requirement of a “front yard” because the front of the lot could Commission exceeded the scope of the statutory limitations
not possibly extend across the lot between the side lot lines; imposed on the Commission when it failed to give reasons for
that is, one part of the front of the lot would abut the street, its denial of the Chandlers' subdivision proposal. However,
and there would be a second front-lot boundary line set back that argument is also unavailing to the Chandlers.
from the street. The city attorney concluded that the entire
front boundary of the lot is required to abut a public street. Although the Chandlers' draw a comparison to Mobile City
Planning Commission v. Southern Region Developers, Inc.,
The Commission's denial of the requested subdivision can 628 So.2d 739 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), that case is not analogous
hardly be called “ ‘ “arbitrary or capricious or ... not made to the present case. In Mobile City Planning Commission,
in compliance with applicable law,” ’ ” Stanley, 775 So.2d at the trial court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus to
228, when the Commission based its denial of the subdivision the plaintiff landowner who sought to subdivide its property.
on an opinion from the city attorney, who stated that the 628 So.2d at 740. The trial court found that in denying
city's zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations do not the plaintiff's request the Mobile Planning Commission had
allow flag lots. See Green v. Johnson City Reg'l Planning stated no valid reason and had made “ ‘no adverse finding
Comm'n, (No. E2003–02509–COA–R3–CV, Sept. 28, 2004) whatsoever.’ ” Id. The only reason the Mobile Planning
%
&
&(
N
?J
<@?
%
4
&4
J-
K@) N
<
(
(
%
&
& (
%(
)
%
)
,?)
<
?
-
%(
%
<
&
1
J ? J%
4
<
&
%
K@<H$%) "".
7
1&@BF9 GE"
GG!9 HBIFH>*(* AI
%
%(
4
<
&
@:
(
(
& >
(A&
% <
<
&&
%(
&
( %
%
&4
) <
(
%
&
1&
%(
(%
(& ? J
< @ ? J-
< @ $%
%
&
) ""
4
&(
&
<
* N %
%(
&-
&&
& <
%
( % %
!
&
(% %
!
& 4 ?HI
&
$ <
(@ +, / D"" 9 G"D G!
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV
$
Kurtz, Lauren 3/14/2023
For Educational Use Only
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
and properly subdivided, sell or lease the other two tracts study request. The study ultimately concluded that Furlong's
of land for the construction of fast food restaurants. The plat would have little impact on the existing traffic system.
proceeds from the sale or lease of the subdivided tracts
would then be used to repay or offset Furlong's purchase and At the March 15, 2000, hearing the city requested more time
construction loans. Prior to completing the platting process, and information regarding the traffic study. On March 29,
Furlong entered into a contract to sell one of the tracts to a 2000, Furlong provided the P & Z committee with a revised,
developer for the construction of a Wendy's restaurant and more comprehensive traffic study, which also concluded that
entered into a contract to lease the other tract to a developer Furlong's proposed plat would have little impact on traffic in
for the construction of a Sonic drive-in. The terms of these the surrounding area. At the March 29 meeting the P & Z
contracts required that the land be properly and finally platted committee voted the matter “off the docket,” meaning that it
and subdivided before construction. would not be reviewed again for up to six months.
On October 1, 1999, Furlong filed an application for approval On April 13, 2000, the chairman of the P & Z committee
of a preliminary plat for the property with the city. On called Furlong's preliminary plat ordinance out of committee
November 3, 1999, Furlong and its engineers met with for docketing before the entire city council. The chairman
the city's plats review committee to receive comments on stated that the city's legal counsel had attended a closed
the preliminary plat. The committee reviewed Furlong's session and advised that there was no legal basis for rejecting
application and suggested certain conditions that needed Furlong's application. On May 4, 2000, the city council voted
to be met prior to approval. On December 7, 1999, at a not to approve *162 Furlong's preliminary plat by a vote of
public hearing, city staff recommended that the city plan 9 to 4. Again, no findings of fact or conclusions of law were
commission approve the preliminary plat application subject issued in regard to the city's denial of Furlong's preliminary
to the conditions. Furlong agreed to all of the conditions of plat.
approval set forth by city staff. Notwithstanding the city staff's
recommendation, the commission voted to deny Furlong's Furlong filed suit against the city on May 9, 2000, seeking
preliminary plat application. The commission did not issue an order of mandamus compelling the city to approve its
findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why Furlong's plat application and also seeking damages under 42 U.S.C.
application was denied. section 1983. After hearing evidence on Furlong's mandamus
claim, the trial court entered an order of mandamus against the
City staff told Furlong that they could not discuss the denial of city on November 29, 2000, compelling the city to approve
the application “for fear of litigation.” Furlong attempted to Furlong's plat application immediately and without undue
submit a revised preliminary plat reflecting compliance with delay. In so doing, the trial court expressly found that the city's
the conditions, but city staff refused to accept it. Furlong then action in denying Furlong's preliminary plat application was
requested that the plat application be submitted to the city unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. After the
council. On February 3, 2000, a proposed ordinance reflecting entry of the mandamus order, Furlong moved forward with its
Furlong's preliminary plat application was introduced to the development plans. Today, the property has been completely
city council for first reading. developed and contains a car wash, a Wendy's restaurant, and
a Sonic drive-in.
On March 1, 8, 15, and 29 of 2000, the Planning, Zoning &
Economic Development Committee (the “P & Z committee”), Subsequent to the mandamus trial, the trial court heard
a subcommittee of the full city council, held public hearings evidence on Furlong's additional claim for damages under 42
regarding approval of Furlong's preliminary plat. During U.S.C. section 1983. The trial court found “the City's conduct
the course of those hearings, the P & Z committee heard to be more than a mere violation of the law but that the action
comments from area residents both in favor of and in of the City rose to the level of truly irrational.” The trial
opposition to the plat application. The city also requested a court awarded Furlong $224,871.00 in actual damages and
traffic study to analyze the effect of Furlong's proposed plat $148,435.20 for costs and attorney's fees. The city appeals.
on the surrounding area. Furlong complied with the traffic
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
town or village; for the coordination city plan commission, and (3) final plat phase review before
of streets within subdivisions with the city council. Each phase has a number of steps within it.
other existing or planned streets or
with other features of the city plan *164 The dispute at issue herein occurred at the preliminary
or official map of the city, town or plat phase. The preliminary plat phase is defined as follows:
village; for adequate open spaces for
traffic, recreation, light and air; and During the preliminary plat phase, the applicant will hold
for a distribution of population and preapplication conferences with the secretary to the city
traffic; provided that, the city, town or plan commission, or his designated staff representative,
village may only impose requirements to discuss in general the procedures and requirements
for the posting of bonds, letters of for platting, and more specifically the basic plans of
credit or escrows for subdivision- the applicant. It is recommended that the applicant's
related improvements as provided for engineer meet with the city engineer, or his designated
in subsections 2 to 5 of this section. staff representative, to review the physical features of
the development relative to the public improvements.
The product of the preapplication conference will allow
the applicant to complete a preliminary plat and submit
These two statutes were harmonized by the decision in City of
it formally for review by the plats review committee.
Bellefontaine Neighbors v. J.J. Kelley Realty & Building Co.,
The plats review committee shall have the authority to
460 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App.1970). In that case, the court held:
approve or disapprove any preliminary plat; provided the
preliminary plat must comply with all of the requirements
of this chapter. The developer may elect to submit the
The specificity of [section 89.410] preliminary plat to the city plan commission and city
may be considered to restrict the council. Generally, the election to proceed before the city
broad grant of power given by plan commission and city council is recommended when:
section 445.030 and to establish
the procedures for carrying out a. The plats review committee disapproves the preliminary
the regulation of subdivisions plat;
authorized by section 445.030. Where
the legislature has authorized a b. The developer is requesting a variance or conditional
municipality to exercise a power and exception from this chapter; or
prescribed the manner of its exercise,
c. The development is planned to be platted in two or more
the right to exercise the power in any
phases If the developer elects to proceed to the city plan
other manner is necessarily denied.
commission and city council, the plats review committee
will review and forward its recommendations to the city
plan commission and city council.
Id. at 303–04.
Kansas City Code section 66–42. The stated purpose of
Section 89.410.1 requires that regulation of subdivisions the preliminary plat is to convey the developer's “ideas and
be accomplished in municipalities by ordinance. State of intentions in platting the proposed subdivision.” Kansas City
Missouri ex rel. Schaefer v. Cleveland, 847 S.W.2d 867, Code section 66–43(a).
871 (Mo.App.1992). Chapter 66 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, contains the rules The developer may also elect to submit his preliminary
and regulations regarding the subdivision of land located plat to the city plan commission and the city council for
in the city. Section 66–42 of the code establishes a three- approval. Kansas City Code section 66–43(e). It appears
step process for ultimate approval of subdivision plats: (1) from the testimony at trial that submitting a preliminary plat
preliminary plat phase, (2) final plat phase review before the to the city plan commission is the standard procedure in
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
Kansas City. When the developer elects to proceed before does not explicitly define a “non-contested case,” but it has
the city plan commission, the plats review committee issues been defined by this Court as a decision that is not required
a recommendation as to approval or denial to the city plan by law to be determined after a hearing. State ex rel. Wilson
commission. Kansas City Code section 66–43(f). There is Chevrolet, Inc. v. Wilson, 332 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Mo.1960).
then to be a public hearing before the city plan commission.
Id. If the commission approves the preliminary plat, it is Contested case review is controlled by sections 536.100
submitted to the city council for approval as an ordinance. to 536.140. Contested cases provide the parties with an
Kansas City Code section 66–43(g). If the plan commission opportunity for a formal hearing with the presentation of
rejects or withholds approval, the developer may request in evidence, including sworn testimony of witnesses and cross-
writing that the plan be submitted to the city council. Id. There examination of witnesses, and require written findings of fact
is then another public hearing before the city council. Id. and conclusions of law. Hagely v. Board of Education of the
Webster Groves School District, 841 S.W.2d 663, 668 (Mo.
When proceeding under the subdivision ordinance, the banc 1992). The review of a contested case is a review by
plan commission and the city council are acting in an the trial court of the record created before the administrative
administrative capacity and not in a legislative capacity. State body. Section 536.140. The trial court's decision upon such
ex rel. Westside Development Co., Inc. v. Weatherby Lake, 935 review is appealable, but the appellate court also looks back
S.W.2d 634, 640 (Mo.App.1996). The law does not permit to the record created before the administrative body. City of
administrative bodies to exercise an arbitrary and subjective Cabool v. Missouri State Board of Mediation, 689 S.W.2d 51,
authority over the granting or denying of subdivision plats. 53 (Mo. banc 1985).
Schaefer, 847 S.W.2d at 873. The exercise of discretion and
judgment vested in the administrative body is to determine Non-contested cases do not require formal proceedings or
whether a plan meets the zoning or subdivision requirements. hearings before the administrative body. Farmer's Bank of
Id. It is not a discretion to approve a plan that does not meet Antonia v. Kostman, 577 S.W.2d 915, 921 (Mo.App.1979). As
the requirements. Id. Nor do the statutes and the ordinance such, there is no record required for review. Phipps v. School
grant the commission or the council the authority to deny a District of Kansas City, 645 S.W.2d 91, 94–5 (Mo.App.1982).
subdivision plat that complies with the subdivision ordinance. In the review of a non-contested decision, the circuit court
Id. If the *165 plat complies, then it is the ministerial duty of does not review the administrative record, but hears evidence,
the commission and the council to approve it, and they have determines facts, and adjudges the validity of the agency
no discretion to deny it. Id. The approval of a preliminary decision. Id. Under the procedures of section 536.150, the
plat that meets the subdivision and zoning requirements is a circuit court conducts such a hearing as an original action. Id
ministerial act, and mandamus is the proper remedy in seeking at 96; section 536.150.1.
to review the denial of such a plat. See Weatherby Lake, 935
S.W.2d at 640; State ex rel Menkhus v. City of Pevely, 865 In either a contested or a non-contested case the private
S.W.2d 871, 874 (Mo.App.1993); Schaefer, 847 S.W.2d at litigant is entitled to challenge the governmental agency's
871. decision. The difference is simply that in a contested case the
private litigant must try his or her case before the agency, and
judicial review is on the record of that administrative trial,
whereas in a non-contested case the private litigant tries his
C. Missouri Administrative Procedure Act
or her case to the court. Depending upon the circumstances,
The Missouri Administrative Procedure Act provides for two this difference may result in procedural advantages or
types of cases: contested cases and non-contested cases. The disadvantages to the parties, but in either situation, the litigant
distinction between these two types of cases is an often- is entitled to develop an evidentiary record in one forum or
litigated issue. A “contested case” is defined in the MAPA as another.
“a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties
or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be
determined after hearing.” Section 536.010(4). The MAPA
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
If a subdivision plat complies with the requirements of Neither party contends that the City should have conducted
the subdivision statute or ordinance, mandamus may compel Furlong's preliminary plat hearing as a contested case and
approval of the plat. If the plat does not comply, mandamus we do not address that question. The parties concede that
is unavailable and improper. mandamus was the proper procedure to challenge the denial
of a preliminary plat. See Weatherby Lake, 935 S.W.2d at 640;
Menkhus, 865 S.W.2d at 874; Schaefer, 847 S.W.2d at 871.
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
The trial court found that the city's decision was “unlawful,
unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious in that the [city] failed
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
to perform its ministerial duty, given that this court finds that well within the three to one requirement. Regardless, there
[Furlong] met the subdivision regulations and the preliminary is substantial evidence that this issue was easily correctable
plat is consistent with the zoning ordinance.” The standard of through a simple revision of one of the lot boundary lines.
review for a bench-tried case is well-established. An appellate *169 In fact, Furlong made such a revision and attempted
court must sustain the decree or judgment of the trial court to submit that revised preliminary plat to the city, but was
unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless not allowed to do so. There was also evidence at trial that
it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously the three to one ratio requirement was not even applicable
declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. to Furlong's preliminary plat because the ratio was intended
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). to apply only to the subdivision of “large tracts or parcels.”
There was testimony at trial that this provision typically was
Despite the language of its point relied on, the city only applied to tracts of ten acres or more, whereas Furlong's
apparently only challenges the sufficiency of Furlong's parcel was only 2.76 acres. There was substantial evidence for
evidence regarding four conditions for approval. First, the city the trial court to find that Furlong's preliminary plat complied
argues that the project had a “potential impact on traffic.” with the requirement that the lot depth not exceed three times
The record reflects, however, that the city council required the lot width.
Furlong to conduct a traffic study to examine the impact
of the proposed development based on Furlong's intended Finally, the city argues that Furlong's preliminary plat did not
uses of the land. Furlong hired a traffic-engineering firm comply with one of the proposed conditions recommended
to conduct such a study. The city council questioned the by the city staff because it did not eliminate the easterly
findings of the initial study, and Furlong then asked the drive on proposed lot 3. However, there was evidence that
traffic engineers to perform a more comprehensive study. The the easterly drive had already been approved by Kansas
studies ultimately concluded that the proposed development City parks and recreation such that the city staff could not
would have little or no impact on existing traffic patterns. properly require its elimination. There was also evidence that
There was substantial evidence for the trial court to find that Furlong had agreed to satisfy the conditions as proposed by
the proposed development would not have a “potential impact the city staff and was specifically willing to address the issues
on traffic.” surrounding the easterly drive on proposed lot 3. There was
substantial evidence for the trial court to find that Furlong's
The city also argues that “a reasonable person could doubt” preliminary plat complied, or could easily comply through
that Furlong's plat complied with the “stacking” requirements simple revision, with all of city staff's conditions for approval.
for cars at a car wash. 3 However, at trial, the city planner
and Furlong's engineer testified that the stacking requirement It also appears that the city's attorney advised, in closed
had been satisfied. Moreover, the staff report recommending session, that the city could not legally deny Furlong's
approval of Furlong's preliminary plat indicates that the preliminary plat. A member of the city council indicated that,
stacking requirement was satisfied. There was substantial although he thought Furlong's plan was “terrible,” he argued
evidence for the trial court to find that Furlong complied with in favor of Furlong's preliminary plat to the other members of
section 80–140(b)(1)d.4 of the zoning ordinance. the city council based on the advice of the city attorney.
3 There was substantial evidence for the trial court to find that
Stacking refers to the space occupied by a motor
the city's decision to deny approval of Furlong's preliminary
vehicle waiting to enter a car wash bay.
plat was unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.
The city argues that Furlong did not comply with the
requirement that the ratio of the lot depth to width generally
not exceed three to one when subdividing large parcels.
C.
Under one method of measurement, lot 2 as shown on the
preliminary plat before the city council had a ratio of 3.07 to 1. In its third point of error, the city argues that “the trial court's
Other methods of measurement, such as taking the average lot grant of judgment on the substantive due process claim was
depth as compared to average lot width, would generate a ratio
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
clearly erroneous because there was no substantial evidence (8th Cir.1997). A claimant must also establish that the
to support a finding that the city acted in a clearly irrational governmental action was “truly irrational.” Id. The truly
manner when its city council denied Furlong's preliminary irrational standard has been further defined as “something
plat application in that the trial court erroneously declared more than ... arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of state law.”
the law and in that the plat did not comply with the city's Chesterfield Development Corp. v. City of Chesterfield, 963
subdivision ordinance and this was a rational basis for the F.2d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir.1992); Frison v. City of Pagedale,
city's denial and in that Furlong used the process available and 897 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Mo.App.1995). As stated previously,
therefore was not denied due process.” the standard of review for a bench-tried case in Missouri
is well-established. An appellate court must sustain the
Furlong alleged that the city violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial
denying its preliminary plat in contravention of its ministerial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the
duty to approve it upon compliance with the subdivision evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it
regulations. Section 1983 states: erroneously applies the law. Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32.
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (2006)
afforded any opportunity to amend or correct the preliminary 536 S.W.2d at 32. All plat denial cases do not give rise to an
plat. action for violation of section 1983. Bituminous Materials,
126 F.3d at 1070.
Once Furlong requested that the preliminary plat be brought
before the city council, the city council subjected Furlong to Mere delay or mistaken application of the law is not alone
numerous delays. On March 1, 2000, the P & Z committee sufficient to meet the “truly irrational” standard. In dicta, the
of the city council held a public meeting to determine the Eighth Circuit has even suggested that bad faith enforcement
fate of Furlong's preliminary plat. No vote was taken and of an invalid law would not be sufficient to state a claim. Id.,
the issue was continued until March 8, 2000. During the Chesterfield Development, 963 F.2d at 1105.
March 8, 2000, meeting no vote was taken, the issue was
continued for one week, and the committee ordered Furlong to The facts of this case go beyond mistaken, arbitrary, or
undertake a traffic impact study. During the March 15, 2000, capricious application of the law. It is clear from the record
meeting the committee requested that a more detailed traffic that all or nearly all of the members of the city council
study be performed, no vote was taken, and the issue was believed that Furlong's proposed project would be bad for this
continued for two weeks. Finally, on March *171 29, 2000, area of Kansas City. To this extent, they were acting in good
after completing two waves of a traffic impact study finding faith and with the best intentions of serving those who elected
that the proposed development would have little or no impact them. However, it is equally clear that under the existing and
on existing traffic conditions, 4 the committee again failed to valid ordinances of Kansas City and the established law of
vote on Furlong's preliminary plat, instead voting it “off the this State that Furlong was entitled to have its preliminary plat
docket,” where it could be held in legislative limbo for several approved. Further, there was evidence from which the trial
months with no final decision. Ultimately, the preliminary plat court could find that, despite the recommendations of staff
was presented to the full city council for a final vote on May and legal counsel, and ultimately the arguments of a fellow
4, 2000. city council member, the city council intentionally delayed
and denied Furlong its property rights in disregard of the law.
4 When government acts with intentional disregard of its own
The city's own engineer reviewed the traffic impact
valid law, knowing that its actions deprive individuals of their
study and agreed with the findings.
property rights, such action is “truly irrational.”
The city's attorney advised, in closed session, that the city
could not legally deny Furlong's preliminary plat. A member The overall course of conduct that the city undertook as it
of the city council indicated that, although he thought reviewed and ultimately denied Furlong's preliminary plat
Furlong's plan was “terrible,” he argued in favor of Furlong's was substantial evidence for the trial court to find that the city
preliminary plat to the other members of the city council acted in a “truly irrational” manner.
based on the advice of that city attorney. Nonetheless, the city
council voted to deny the preliminary plat application.
D.
In the ten years leading up to and including Furlong's plat
application, there were 197 plat applications submitted to the In its fourth point of error, the city argues that “the trial court's
city for review. Of those, 196 were approved, typically within award of damages was clearly erroneous because there was
one week of submission. Only Furlong's preliminary plat was no substantial evidence to support *172 a finding that the
denied during that ten-year time period. Such a deviation both city proximately caused the damages awarded to Furlong.”
from the standard treatment of preliminary plats over a ten-
year period and from the advice of staff and counsel leaves no Causation is an essential element of a section 1983 action.
question as to the sufficiency of evidence on which the trial Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). In order to
court based its decision. award damages, the trial court had to determine that the city's
conduct in denying Furlong's preliminary plat proximately
The Court's role is not to weigh the evidence, but only to caused the economic damage for which Furlong seeks to
review the decision for sufficiency of evidence. See Murphy,
!"#
$%&%!'!
()*%+%,-./0
2
, &
<
.
<<
,
,
, !&?A' ( ==
, , ,
!
!,
<
& &
K
<
# (
!&
,&
K
% (&
<
, (.
<
.
' , &
, % = =>>> & & * H G
&
% ,
!
<
.
C
& & ,,
D = =>>> !
,
&
& &
&
, &
!"5.
1 =>>> !
&
; &
& =0 % ( &
&& <
&
!
<
&
=0M
, &
.
/0>0 >> ! &
&
2
/?>>>> >> % <
&
, ,
&
!
<
K
&
&
&
,& &K
&&I/>> >>J &
&
;,
!,
&
&
.
I/?>> >>J !
/010 >> &<
.,
K
% (.
,
".
?
& & ! &
/==10 >>
, ! ? !
< . !; &
8, & ,
& /010 >> & ;
&&
<
.
!/?>>>> >> %
<
&
, 2
, !
&
,
K
3
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV
!!
Kurtz, Lauren 3/14/2023
For Educational Use Only
permit, the applicant shall submit a development plan for not to consider the potential adverse economic impact of
review and approval by the Development Review Committee. a proposed boutique hospital. The hearing minutes indicate
Such review shall be made only to determine compliance with that Frontera's attorney “reminded the Council that Mayor
the Land Development Code and shall not include changes Delgado earlier ... asked the City [a]ttorney if this [was] a
of usage, density, or developable area.” Immediately after the land use case, and the City [a]ttorney responded yes. He then
above provision, Part 5 of the Ordinance states that “[p]rior stated ‘[t]hat means you can't consider the alleged negative
to submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall submit economic impact on other businesses.’ “
a development plan for review and approval by the City
Council.” Petitioners contend, and the district court agreed, Councilor Ortiz noted that an attorney for the development
Part 4 of the Ordinance's limited review applied only to the had instructed the Council as follows:
Development Review Committee, and that there was no such
limitation on the full Council's review addressed in Part 5 of [T]his is a land use issue only and that the Council is
the Ordinance. not supposed to make any decision based on business
comparisons or economics, but the Wal–Mart side is saying
The public hearing on Entrada Contenta was held on August to the Council that “it makes good policy sense to have
15, 2005 at the Santa Fe High School gym in order to businesses and services located in a particular place.”
accommodate the crowd and lasted from 7:00 p.m. until 4:30
On the morning of August 16, 2005, the Council approved the
a.m. Numerous persons spoke against and in favor of the
development by a 5–4 vote after the mayor broke a 4–4 tie
development and addressed many issues beyond whether the
among the councilors.
development complied with the land development code. In
general, the public comments addressed the reputation of
In the appeal to the district court, Respondents moved to
Wal–Mart, the adverse economic effects on existing small
strike the affidavits of three City councilors—Patti Bushee,
businesses, and the need for jobs and low-priced shopping in
David Coss, and Rebecca Wurzburger—that Petitioners
the area.
had submitted to the court to supplement the record as
evidence that the Council's vote had been influenced by
*2 The extent to which Petitioners were organized at the
the purportedly incorrect advice from the City attorney.
time of the 2005 public hearing is somewhat unclear. One
Councilor Wurzburger's affidavit states that she would have
of their present attorneys testified and was identified in the
presented a summary entitled, The Coming of Wal–Mart,
minutes as “attorney for the Small Business Alliance.” At
at the public hearing had she not been led to believe the
least four of the present Petitioners testified.
Council was prohibited from considering the types of issues
the articles raised. The district court granted Respondents'
The City attorney's statements that set forth the purported
motion to strike the supplemental affidavits. Absent the
limitation on the scope of the Council's review do not
three affidavits, the only evidence in the record that the
appear in the public hearing record. Two pro-development
City attorney had given the purportedly incorrect advice was
attorneys—one representing Herrera and Associates and the
Frontera's attorney's reference to it mentioned above. While
other representing Frontera Development—referred to this
remarks from Herrera's attorney and Councilor Ortiz also
purported limitation in their remarks at the Council's public
stated that the Council's review was limited to compliance
hearing. Herrera's attorney noted in her statement before
with land use regulations, neither one mentioned the City
the public comments began that the Council was acting
attorney as having instructed the Council accordingly.
in a quasi-judicial capacity, not a legislative capacity, and
that the Council was to consider whether the development
complied with the criteria that were in place. She stated that II. DISCUSSION
“[t]he Code does not allow you, nor should it, discretion *3 NMSA 1978, Section 3–21–9 (1999) states that “[a]
to regulate business competition by the approval or denial person aggrieved by a decision of the zoning authority or any
of development plans. To do so would be to read criteria officer, department, board or bureau of the zoning authority
and standards into the Code that do not exist.” She also may appeal the decision pursuant to the provisions of [NMSA
referred to an earlier project in which the Council had agreed
1978, Section 39–3–1.1 (1999) ].” That section addresses the needed to establish that the City attorney had, in fact, given
procedure for appeal to the district court and specifies the the instruction before the public hearing commenced, and
nature of the district court's review. because some of the Council assert that they considered the
instruction in their deliberations, the record should include the
In a proceeding for judicial review of a final decision by an affidavits as evidence that the instruction occurred.
agency, the district court may set aside, reverse or remand
the final decision if it determines that: The parties agree that this appeal is guided by Rule 1–
074. A record on appeal from an administrative agency
(1) the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or
consists, in pertinent part, of “all papers and pleadings filed
capriciously;
in the proceedings of the agency ... [and a] transcript of the
(2) the final decision was not supported by substantial proceedings.” Rule 1–074(H). Corrections to the record may
evidence; or be made “[i]f anything material ... is omitted from the record
on appeal by error or accident, the parties by stipulation, or the
(3) the agency did not act in accordance with law. agency on request, or the district court, on proper suggestion
or on its own initiative, may direct that the omission be
Section 39–3–1.1(D); see Rule 1–074(Q). Section 39–3– corrected and a supplemental record transmitted to the district
1.1(E) specifies that the district court's decision is reviewable court. Rule 1–074(I); see Martinez v. N.M. State Eng'r Office,
in the discretion of this Court upon petition for certiorari. 2000–NMCA–074, ¶ 48, 129 N.M. 413, 9 P.3d 657 (stating
that only material that was in fact presented below, but was
This Court applies the same standard of review applied by mistakenly or inadvertently omitted from the record, may be
the district court. Rio Grande Chapter of Sierra Club v. included in a supplemental record). Additionally, a record that
N.M. Mining Comm'n, 2003–NMSC–005, ¶ 17, 133 N.M. is inadequate may be remanded to an administrative body for
97, 61 P.3d 806 (filed 2002). “A ruling by an administrative the purpose of creating a record that is adequate for review.
agency is arbitrary and capricious if it is unreasonable or Lewis v. City of Santa Fe, 2005–NMCA–032, ¶ 20, 137 N.M.
without a rational basis, when viewed in light of the whole 152, 108 P.3d 558.
record.” Id. “Generally, courts should not attempt to supply
a reasoned basis for an agency's decision, but may uphold *4 We primarily note that the affidavits themselves were
a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path not papers or pleadings filed in the proceedings that were
may reasonably be discerned.” Archuleta v. Santa Fe Police considered by the Council, but were documents created for
Dep't, 2005–NMSC–006, ¶ 17, 137 N.M. 161, 108 P.3d the purpose of appeal. See Rule 1–074(H). Petitioners argue
1019 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]n that the instruction by the City attorney was considered by
resolving ambiguities in the statute or regulations which an the Council and should be viewed as part of the proceedings.
agency is charged with administering, the Court generally They further argue that the instruction was inadequately
will defer to the agency's interpretation if it implicates agency represented in the record, and citing Lewis, they suggest that
expertise.” Rio Grande Chapter, 2003–NMSC–005, ¶ 17, 133 the case be remanded to the Council, so that an adequate
N.M. 97, 61 P.3d 806 (internal quotation marks and citation record may be made.
omitted). We will not, however, defer to an agency's or the
district court's interpretation of an ordinance as that is a matter We need not decide whether an instruction by the City
we review de novo. N.M. Indus. Energy Consumers v. N.M. attorney before the public hearing began was part of the
Pub. Regulation Comm'n, 2007–NMSC–053, ¶ 19, 142 N.M. proceeding to determine that the record should not be
533, 168 P.3d 105. supplemented by the affidavits. In Lewis, the Council denied
Wal–Mart's application to build a gas station at its Sam's Club
location. 2005–NMCA–032, ¶ 2, 137 N.M. 152, 108 P.3d
A. Affidavits
558. Wal–Mart appealed to district court, upon which the City
Petitioners argue that the district court erred in refusing
then settled the matter by approving the station subject to
to allow the affidavits of the three City councilors to
certain conditions. Id. ¶ 3. The petitioner in Lewis appealed,
supplement the record. They argue that the affidavits were
citing the absence of further opportunity for public comment
following the Council's reversal of its earlier rejection of development arbitrary and capricious. Thus, they seem to
the application. Id. The district court dismissed both Wal– argue that the purported incorrect advice may have caused
Mart's and the petitioner's appeals. Id. ¶ ¶ 4–5. The petitioner councilors to vote differently than they otherwise would have
appealed to this Court. Id. ¶ 5. The City and Wal–Mart argued had the instruction not occurred. However, Petitioners do
that the record was inadequate for an appeal pursuant to Rule not argue that the Council failed to consider issues that it
1–074. Lewis, 2005–NMCA–032, ¶ 20, 137 N.M. 152, 108 was legally obligated to consider under Ordinance No. 14–
P.3d 558. This Court stated that “the district court is at liberty 1994. Instead, they argue that three of the eight councilors
to remand for the purpose of creating a record that is adequate incorrectly believed they were prohibited from considering
for review.” Id. In Lewis, the possibility of an inadequate matters that they had discretion to consider.
record arose because the City's discussions in reaching the
settlement had occurred in an executive (non-public) session Because we conclude that it is speculative that the Council
and represented a complete change in position. Id. ¶ 3, 20. did not consider issues other than land use, we need not
Unlike in Lewis, in the present case, an extensive record address whether it would have been arbitrary and capricious
exists and includes mention of the basis for the appeal—the had the Council only considered land use issues. After
purported limitation on the Council's scope of review. The hours of testimony from citizens in favor of the commercial
record is sufficient to consider whether the Council acted development, Councilor Ortiz made remarks at the August 15
fraudently, arbitrarily, or capriciously, without substantial hearing that demonstrate considerations other than land use.
evidence or not in accordance with the law. See id. He stated: “I believe Wal–Mart is a bad corporation. I believe
they're bad to their employees. I think they're bad to the
There are strong policy considerations behind the rules for environment. They're bad to this country. But my constituents
limiting supplementation of a record on appeal. In Swisher want their cheap gas, so I have to vote yes.” Councilor Lopez
v. Darden, 59 N.M. 511, 515–16, 287 P.2d 73, 76 (1955), expressed concern that Wal–Mart would abandon its other
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Sanchez location in Santa Fe and leave the property vacant if the
v. Board of Education, 80 N.M. 286, 454 P.2d 768 (1969), new Wal–Mart was approved. Councilor Heldmeyer asked
our Supreme Court noted that, in the absence of a statute, if the other buildings in the project would be franchises or
“review is limited to the record made in the administrative independent businesses. Mayor Delgado stated that approval
proceeding, and the courts [should] decline to hear new ... of the project would let it be known to residents in the area
evidence ... especially where the evidence was available and that “[f]inally[,] we're going to recognize what your needs are
could have been introduced in the administrative tribunal. To out there. Finally[,] we're going to give you a place to shop.”
allow [otherwise] would [be to] substitute the court for the Councilor Chavez moved for approval subject to conditions,
administrative tribunal.” Swisher, 59 N.M. at 515–16, 287 one of which was that Wal–Mart should pay the living wage.
P.2d at 77–76 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Five weeks later at the hearing on traffic planning for the
development, Councilor Ortiz stated:
*5 Because neither party is arguing whether the instruction
from the City attorney occurred, and evidence of the
instruction exists in the record, we see little need in I believe that the corporate philosophy
supplementing the record with affidavits to prove that the of Wal–Mart that it has practiced over
event happened. The references in the minutes are sufficient the last twenty years has been to the
for Petitioners to raise the argument that the City attorney detriment of the communities they
advised the Council to limit its scope of review, and for a court have been involved with and to the
to review the Council's action. detriment of our country. The more
things that they import from China,
the more small businesses that they
B. Arbitrary and Capricious Decision
push out of towns, the worse it is
Petitioners next argue that the instruction by the City attorney
for our country. I also believe that
to the Council was a command that limited their scope of
their employee policy has much to be
review, thus rendering the Council's action of approving the
In light of the record, we are not convinced that the Council When members of the public began speaking in favor of the
took the City attorney's advice and limited its scope of development project, Frontera's attorney reiterated that this
review to land development code issues. The record reveals was a land use case, and the Council could not “consider
reasonable and rational consideration of the project by those the alleged negative economic impact on other businesses.”
who voted for it. Had the three affidavits not been stricken, Given the facts in the record, it would appear that members
they would have tended to show that at least some of of the public spoke their minds about issues beyond the land
the councilors believed their review was limited. However, development code, and members of the Council voted based
there is nothing in the record affirmatively tending to show on issues outside that scope as well.
that any of the pro-development councilors either believed
their review was limited or would have voted against the
development had they so believed. Moreover, we note that it III. CONCLUSION
would appear that the three councilors, whose affidavits are *7 The district court correctly struck the three councilors'
at issue, apparently considered matters other than compliance affidavits on the basis that Rule 1–074 provides no
with the land regulations, as there was little indication that mechanism for adding this type of evidence to an
the development did not satisfy the regulations. We therefore administrative record. Given the extensive record, including
hold that there is no affirmative showing of prejudice by the citizens' testimony on both sides of a broad range of issues,
Petitioners. The record does not indicate that anyone speaking and given indications that the councilors did not entirely
about the development was restricted from expressing their limit their review as advised, the Council's decision was not
views and, therefore, there is no indication that there was not arbitrary and capricious, and is affirmed.
full discussion. The record does suggest that a majority of
councilors considered matters beyond the land development IT IS SO ORDERED.
code. “[A]n assertion of prejudice is not a showing of
prejudice.” In re Stein, 2008–NMSC–013, ¶ 44, 143 N.M.
462, 177 P.3d 513. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge and
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge.
!
"#$%&
'(
)
*#+,-
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV
$
Kurtz, Lauren 3/14/2023
For Educational Use Only
*1174 B. The Remedy for Denial of a Fair Hearing The superior court found that the civil service board had
The trial court set aside the City Council's decision and deprived English of a fair hearing and issued a writ of mandate
ordered the City to reinstate the planning commission's directing that he be reinstated. The Supreme Court agreed
approval of the Clarks' permits. This was error. The trial court that the hearing had been unfair but disagreed with the trial
should have ordered the Council to rehear the matter and to court's remedy, stating: “Since the board, in arriving at its
provide the Clarks with a fair hearing. 23 decision sustaining the order dismissing English, relied upon
information taken outside the hearing, which English had
23 no opportunity to refute, the trial court properly concluded
On remand, when the Council rehears the
appeal from the planning commission, the that he was denied a fair hearing. The judgment, however,
requirement of a “fair” hearing necessarily should not have ordered the reinstatement of English but
precludes Councilmember Benz from participating instead should have remanded the cause to the civil service
in or voting on the matter. (See pt. I.A., ante board for proper proceedings. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5(e)
[discussing disqualification based on conflicts of [now subdivision (f) ];....) The fact that the board has heard
interest].) The Clarks urge us to find that, in and decided the matter does not preclude another hearing
addition to Benz, Councilmember Edgerton is even though the charter does not provide for a rehearing,
biased against them and should be disqualified. *1175 and the board cannot be said to have exhausted
However, because this issue was not raised below its power to act until it has given English a fair hearing.”
on the petition for writ of mandate, we decline (English v. City of Long Beach, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp.
to reach it on appeal. (See California Indemnity 159–160, 217 P.2d 22, citations omitted; accord, Kumar v.
Ins. Premium Finance Co. v. Fireman's Fund National Medical Enterprises, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d
Ins. Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1633, 1641, 1050, 1056, 267 Cal.Rptr. 452 [“the setting aside of a final
47 Cal.Rptr.2d 743.) If the Clarks believe that administrative decision because of unfair hearing practices
any councilmember other than Benz should be requires a remand for further proceedings”]; Zurn Engineers
disqualified in connection with the new hearing, v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Water Resources (1977)
they can raise that point during the administrative 69 Cal.App.3d 798, 835–838, 138 Cal.Rptr. 478 [discussing
proceedings after remand. cases], cert. den. 434 U.S. 985, 98 S.Ct. 612, 54 L.Ed.2d 479.)
The necessity of another hearing follows from the language of We recognize that there may be situations in which a superior
the statute authorizing a writ of administrative mandate: “The court can properly direct that a city council's decision be set
court shall enter judgment either commanding [the council] to aside and that no further administrative hearings be held in the
set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ. Where the case, e.g., where the council had no authority to hear an appeal
judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside, it in the first place **237 (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks
may order the reconsideration of the case in the light of the (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 556–559, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 782) or
court's opinion and judgment and may order [the council] to where the issuance of a building permit is a purely ministerial
take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by act, such that the council has no discretion in the matter
Finally, the Clarks contend that another hearing before the 24 Under City law, “[t]ie votes shall be lost motions
Council would be improper because Councilmember Benz
and may be reconsidered.” (Hermosa Beach
should have recused himself during the April 14, 1992
Mun.Code, § 2–2.21.) Here, a tie vote arguably
meeting, when the Council voted on the resolution denying
would have been tantamount to “no action” on
the Clarks' permits. According to the Clarks, without Benz's
the appeal. With the votes evenly divided between
participation at that meeting, the resulting tie vote (2–2)
granting and denying a conditional use permit, a
would have affirmed the planning commission's decision to
motion either way would have failed for lack of a
approve their project. We disagree. While a tie vote might
third vote. In this scenario, the appeal could have
have affirmed the commission's decision to approve the
remained in perpetual limbo, absent a successful
tentative parcel map, it would not have had that effect as to the
motion for reconsideration or a renewed motion.
conditional use permit. This result is dictated by the different
On the other hand, because the Council was hearing
appeal provisions applicable to the two types of permits.
the matter de novo, a tie vote might have had
the effect of denying the conditional use permit,
On appeal from a planning commission decision regarding
assuming the Clarks had to prove they were entitled
a conditional use permit, the City Council does not merely
to it. (See Committee for a Rickel Alternative v. City
review the commission's decision for error. Rather, the
of Linden (1988) 111 N.J. 192, 196–203, 543 A.2d
Council hears the matter de novo, takes additional evidence
943, 945–949 [where affirmative vote of majority
at a public hearing, and decides whether it should grant or
of city council was required to reverse, remand,
deny the permit. (Hermosa Beach Mun.Code, §§ 1411, 1412;
or affirm decision of board of adjustment, and
Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d
council heard matter de novo with burden of proof
at p. 191, 140 Cal.Rptr. 619; Lagrutta v. City Council (1970)
on applicant, tie vote resulted in denial of use
9 Cal.App.3d 890, 894–895, 96 Cal.Rptr. 627.) In deciding
variance].) In any event, without deciding whether
an appeal, the Council “shall order that the conditional use
a tie vote would have denied the conditional use
permit be granted, denied or modified,” and “[t]he action
permit, we conclude that it would not have affirmed
by the city council ... shall be by three (3) affirmative
the planning commission's decision in that respect.
votes.” (Hermosa Beach Mun.Code, §§ 1412, 1413, italics
added.) In other words, the Clarks needed three affirmative The Clarks' reliance on Woodland Hills Residents Assn.,
*1176 votes in the Council to obtain a conditional use Inc. v. City Council (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 825, 830–831,
permit. A tie vote would not suffice. “[A]s a general rule 118 Cal.Rptr. 856, and Pacific Palisades Property Owners
an even division among members of an administrative Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 781, 786,
agency results in no action.” (Graves v. Commission on 117 Cal.Rptr. 138, is of no avail. Those decisions construed
Professional Competence (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 970, 976– provisions of the Subdivision Map Act which provide that
977, 134 Cal.Rptr. 71.) Indeed, in construing an ordinance a tentative map shall be deemed to be approved where (1)
virtually identical to the one here, we have previously held the city council has “failed to act” upon an appeal within
that a city council's tie vote does not affirm the underlying the statutorily specified time period, and (2) the planning
decision of a planning commission. (Anderson v. Pittenger commission has already approved **238 the map. (See
(1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 188, 194–195, 17 Cal.Rptr. 54 [on former Bus. & Prof.Code, § 11553, as amended by Stats.1961,
appeal from planning commission's decision to grant a zoning ch. 194, § 4, pp. 1202–1203, now Gov.Code, § 66452.4;
variance, city council's tie vote constituted “no action” and former Bus. & Prof.Code, § 11552, as amended by Stats.1973,
“was not an affirmance of the order of the commission”]; see ch. 306, § 1, pp. 721–723, now Gov.Code, § 66452.5.)
also REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Com. (1975) In both cases, the courts found that the city council's tie
52 Cal.App.3d 596, 605–609, 125 Cal.Rptr. 201 [on appeal vote constituted a “failure to act” upon the appeal, thereby
With these cautionary words in mind, we turn to the 29 This standard “appropriately balances the need
Supreme Court's analysis in Board of Regents v. Roth,
for local autonomy in a matter of paramount
supra, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, to
local concern with recognition of constitutional
determine what qualifies as a property interest for due process
protection at the very outer margins of municipal
purposes: “Certain attributes of ‘property’ interests protected
behavior. The standard represents a sensitive
by procedural due process emerge from [our] decisions. To
recognition that decisions on matters of local
have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must
concern should ordinarily be made by those
have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have
whom local residents select to represent them in
more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have
municipal government—not by federal courts. It
a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the
also recognizes that the Fourteenth Amendment's
ancient institution of property to protect those claims upon
Due Process Clause does not function as a general
which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be
overseer of arbitrariness in state and local land-use
arbitrarily undermined.... Property interests, of course, are not
decisions.” (Gardner v. Baltimore Mayor & City
created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their
Council, supra, 969 F.2d at p. 69.)
dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings
that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules **241 In this case, we cannot say that the discretion
or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support of the City Council was so narrowly circumscribed that
claims of entitlement to those benefits.” (Id. at p. 577, 92 S.Ct. approval of the Clarks' application was virtually assured.
at p. 2709.) The planning commission and the City Council were vested
with sufficient discretion to defeat any expectation that the
“When analyzing whether a plaintiff presents a legitimate Clarks' application would be approved as submitted. In
claim of entitlement, we focus on the degree of discretion that regard, we think it important to define as precisely as
given the decisionmaker and not on the probability of the possible the property interest at stake. The Clarks do not
decision's favorable outcome.” (Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs (and cannot) claim that the City has infringed their interest
B. Substantive Due Process In any event, assuming that substantive due process remains
As a substantive limitation on governmental action, a viable check on state and local land-use decisions, “a party
the due process clause precludes arbitrary and irrational asserting a deprivation of substantive due process must first
decisionmaking. (Crowley v. Courville, supra, 76 F.3d at p. establish a valid property interest within the meaning of the
52; Zorzi v. County of Putnam, supra, 30 F.3d at p. 895; Constitution.” (Crowley v. Courville, supra, 76 F.3d at p. 52;
Gardner v. Baltimore Mayor & City Council, supra, 969 F.2d accord, Zorzi v. County of Putnam, supra, 30 F.3d at p. 895;
Gardner v. Baltimore Mayor & City Council, supra, 969 F.2d
As indicated in our discussion of the Clarks' procedural In Uhlrig v. Harder (10th Cir.1995) 64 F.3d 567, cert.
due process claim, they have no protected property interest den., 516 U.S. 1118, 116 S.Ct. 924, 133 L.Ed.2d 853,
in their requested permits. (See pt. II.A, ante.) Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “the
the substantive due process claim fails for that reason alone. standard for judging a substantive due process claim is
Alternatively, even if a constitutionally recognized property whether the challenged government action would ‘ “shock
interest is involved, we find that the City did not engage in the conscience” of ... judges.’ ... [¶] ... [¶] ... [T]o satisfy the
arbitrary or irrational conduct. ‘shock the conscience’ standard, a plaintiff must do more than
show that the government actor intentionally or recklessly
In PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez (1st Cir.1991) 928 F.2d caused injury to the plaintiff by abusing or misusing
28, cert. dism., 503 U.S. 257, 112 S.Ct. 1151, 117 L.Ed.2d government power. That is, the plaintiff **244 must
400, a developer (“PFZ”) brought a section 1983 action demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of
against a Puerto Rico agency for refusing to process its potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking. The
building plans. In rejecting PFZ's substantive due process level of conduct required to satisfy this additional requirement
claim, the First Circuit Court of Appeals stated: “[R]ejections cannot precisely be defined, but must necessarily evolve
of *1185 development projects and refusals to issue building over time from judgments as to the constitutionality of
permits do not ordinarily implicate substantive due process.... specific government conduct. We do know, however, that
Even where state officials have allegedly violated state law or the ‘shock the conscience’ standard requires a high level of
administrative procedures, such violations do not ordinarily outrageousness, because the Supreme Court has specifically
rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation.... The doctrine admonished that a substantive due process violation requires
of substantive due process ‘does not protect individuals more than an ordinary tort....” (Id. at pp. 573–574, citing
from all [governmental] actions that infringe liberty or injure *1186 Collins v. Harker Heights (1992) 503 U.S. 115, 126,
property in violation of some law. Rather, substantive due 128, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 1069, 1070, 117 L.Ed.2d 261.) As the
process prevents “governmental power from being used for high court has recognized, “The Due Process Clause ‘is not
purposes of oppression,” or “abuse of government power that a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised [governmental]
shocks the conscience,” or “action that is legally irrational decisions.’ ” (Collins v. Harker Heights, supra, 503 U.S. at p.
in that it is not sufficiently keyed to any legitimate state 129, 112 S.Ct. at p. 1070.)
interests.” ’ ” (928 F.2d at pp. 31–32, citations omitted, quoted
with approval in Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of In this case, regardless of whether the City Council's decision
San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 709–710, 38 was proper under state law, we cannot say that its conduct,
Cal.Rptr.2d 413, cert. den., 516 U.S. 913, 116 S.Ct. 300, 133 for due process purposes, was arbitrary or oppressive or that
L.Ed.2d 205.) it “shocks the conscience.” Although we have concluded that
Councilmember Benz had a conflict of interest in voting
Applying these principles in PFZ Properties, the First on the project, the city attorney advised the Council at the
Circuit concluded: “[W]e hold that PFZ's allegations public hearing that there was no conflict. That advice was
that [government] officials failed to comply with agency incorrect, but it was not irrational. In light of the city attorney's
regulations or practices in the review and approval process opinion, the Council did not act irrationally by allowing Benz
for the construction drawings are not sufficient to support to participate in the proceedings. 33
a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.... Even
assuming that [the agency] engaged in delaying tactics
&
FH"
F00)')("
5 '
''4C("
;
6
! (4&)C(;
*
;50&''CC(;
*
;50&40O
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV
"#$%&
&
'( %
) *
+%
,-&
Kurtz, Lauren 3/14/2023
For Educational Use Only
the property is inconsistent with its use. The City Planning Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regulations and seeking
Commission discussed the request with the city attorney the advice of the city attorney on the proper application
and the city attorney issued an opinion letter expressing of those regulations to the instant case. Section 401 of the
his belief that the extension of the pier was appropriate Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) of Ocean Springs
under the current R–1 status, making re-zoning unnecessary. governs areas zoned as R–1. Of course, while the principle
Immediately thereafter, the City Planning Commission denied use of R–1 land is single family dwellings, other uses are
OSYC's rezoning request and recommended that the City expressly permitted, like a country club. Yacht clubs and
approve a building permit for the pier extension instead. A country clubs are defined identically under this section of the
building permit was issued in 1997 and the issuance of the CZO. City ordinance 1–1977, unanimously approved by the
permit was upheld by the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Mayor and Board of Aldermen, specifically states that the
parcel of land on which the OSYC sits can be used for country
club purposes, which is synonymous with yacht club purposes
as defined in other CZO sections.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 4. The Mississippi Supreme Court stated that neither ¶ 6. Section 409.2 of the CZO defines a zone called C–4–
they nor the circuit court should sit as a super-zoning B, which applies to commercially limited marinas and allows
commission. City of Biloxi v. Hilbert, 597 So.2d 1276, yacht clubs to operate in those areas. Appellants seem to argue
1281 (Miss.1992). The appellate court should not determine that because there is a C–4–B zone, that area should be the
whether it would adopt the ordinance in question, instead only zone where a yacht club can operate. Nothing in the
it should determine whether the City's decision to adopt CZO dictates a yacht club designation must be and can only
the ordinance is reasonable and supported by substantial be placed in a C–4–B zone. This is glaringly apparent when
evidence. City of Biloxi, 597 So.2d at 1281; Ridgewood Land considered in light of other ordinances passed to the contrary
Co. v. Simmons, 243 Miss. 236, 137 So.2d 532 (1962). The specifically allowing the OSYC to operate in their current
decisions of municipal authorities in zoning matters, because location.
they are legislative decisions, are presumed valid. Woodland
Hills Conservation Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jackson, 443 So.2d ¶ 7. Appellants also argue that the pier will be extended into
1173, 1180 (Miss.1983). In examining a zoning order issued the water, which is not zoned for R–1 use and not really zoned
by a city council, the circuit court sits as an appellate at all. All of the riparian rights aside, the OSYC has used the
court, with a restricted scope of judicial review. Ridgewood water in front of the property since the early 1970's, and the
Land Co. v. Moore, 222 So.2d 378, 379 (Miss.1969). To be use of water areas falls under the purview of the Mississippi
reversed, the order must be shown to be arbitrary, capricious, Bureau of Marine Resources which has already approved the
discriminatory, beyond the legal authority of the City Board pier extension in question.
or unsupported by substantial evidence. Ridgewood Land Co.,
222 So.2d at 379. ¶ 8. Much of what appellants argue in their brief is irrelevant
and has no bearing on the 1997 building permit, but
rather the process and procedures that were followed years
earlier in regard to securing the location for the OSYC in
*1031 LEGAL ANALYSIS their neighborhood. After applying existing zoning law and
considering the recommendation of the City attorney, the
I. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
Mayor and Board of Aldermen denied the zoning request
JACKSON COUNTY HAD SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE
as unnecessary. Another administrative agency issued the
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S DECISION TO
building permit based upon the same guidelines and evidence.
ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE OSYC.
Certainly this evidence presented to the trial court far and
¶ 5. The record reflects that the Mayor and Board
away meets the arbitrary and capricious standard set forth
of Aldermen were anything but arbitrary and capricious
above.
in determining the fate of the pier extension. It appears
that they followed existing statutory law by heeding the
!"#$
%&'
()*%"*+,
"
() '
77 #.5.5 .5 7;
(BLL1* BBL BBH'4(AAA)'
& A*
-6 -5%8 107891 4%; 1* **A)
5/; =0-8 .5 >%/737;
-6 % 5.87%//; 8-8? :((-1;
-40/7%8 @-8789
7
-378%85 %4583458
0%115378(ABB
<
: A
.
4 %
N(B?(?(B'(AAC)<
+
"
-
(?(ABB
.
(ABH
@
-
-
(?(ABB
%
$
-
1
-1;
:(*$%&'()*+&,$"$%&-./-(.$-"(/$"
'-0",-"(,$1../+&)2-"$"
$%.&/&&&)$"$%&&,$2
: (, 4 1
&
447//78 ! 2789%831-=.#72 0!! 37%@
7>789 /55 4--5 0%;85 %83 .-4%1 !!
#
&
**A 4 -8=
KA, A* 1* **B **A '(ACB) -
-
+
BCK1* (,*K
(QGRI'RFXPHQW 7KRPVRQ5HXWHUV1RFODLPWRRULJLQDO86*RYHUQPHQW:RUNV