Court Opinion

ID: 9861276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:51:48.327259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:56.354969
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, Acting P. J., J.,Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the order denying the petition for rehearing, but I do not concur in the modification of the opinion originally filed. Section 9219.9 expressly requires the order to specify the reasons found by the planning commissioner or zoning administrator for denying or granting an application. Such requirement obviously contemplates review for arbitrariness or caprice and necessarily imports that granting or denying an application is mandatory in some circumstances. If the ordinance could be saved by so construing it, I would so construe it. But the vice of the ordinance is that the standards, if any, set forth are so vague that uniform application and review for abuse of discretion are virtually impossible.
If, of course, a new ordinance is to be enacted, it should plainly provide that issuance of a license is mandatory if the standards set forth in the ordinance are met. Then no court will be called upon to save the ordinance’s validity by construction.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 14, 1981.