Restaurant vote reviewed

The Burbank City Council will review whether a conflict of interest

existed when a Planning Board member voted on a proposed restaurant

project in Magnolia Park.

Residents raised questions whether board Vice Chairman Dan

Humfreville should have voted on the application for a conditional

use permit for California Chicken Cafe since his brother, Bill

Humfreville, is a manager at the restaurant’s locations in Santa

Monica and Westwood.

The council was concerned that the perception of a conflict could

be damaging to the Planning Board.

“If the credibility of the Planning Board is at all in question it

not only impacts their decisions as to how they are received, it also

impacts our ability to make decisions for the community,” Vice Mayor

Todd Campbell said. “I take that very seriously.”

Speaking before the council, Bill Humfreville was adamant he had

no financial interest in the proposed Burbank restaurant.

“I have no -- zero -- organizational or directive control over

this company,” Bill Humfreville said.

A check of state records lists Andre De Montesquiou and Dave

Najarian as the partners in California Chicken Cafe L.P.

The Planning Board recommended on Aug. 22 that the City Council

approve the conditional use permit for the 4,700-square-foot

restaurant to open at 2921 Magnolia Blvd. despite city staff members

saying there was not enough parking for the restaurant.

The council is scheduled to vote on the permit Oct. 11. A group of

residents is appealing the Planning Board’s recommendation.

Penny Church, a resident from the 900 block of Niagara Street

nearby to the proposed restaurant, called for Dan Humfreville’s

removal from the Planning Board, saying the board’s vote was done

with deception and omission.

“It is difficult to quantify the impact [Dan] Humfreville’s input

on the vote” Church said. “I suggest the videotape be viewed by the

Legal Department and other [Planning Board] members polled as to why

they ignored staff’s recommendation.”

Dan Humfreville told the council he did consult with Assistant

City Atty. Mary Riley about whether he should take part in the vote

on the restaurant’s application.

City Attorney Dennis Barlow confirmed that the conversation

between Dan Humfreville and Riley took place and said that if Bill

Humfreville had no financial interest in the Burbank restaurant that

did not require Dan Humfreville to recuse himself from the discussion

or disclose his brother’s connections.

Still, the council asked that City Attorney office review the

matter and bring it back to them at a later meeting.

Councilman Dave Golonski said that the issue of the restaurant’s

condition use permit and Dan Humfreville’s potential conflict were

issues that needed to be addressed separately.

He understood the emotions involved from those on both sides of

the issue, Golonski said.

“As a City Council we have to step away from that and look at

what’s best,” Golonski continued. “It would be prudent for us to try

and provide separation.”

QUESTION

Should being the brother of a California Chicken Cafe manager in

Los Angeles affect whether Planning Board Vice Chairman Dan

Humfreville should have voted? E-mail your responses to

o7burbankleader @latimes.comf7; mail them to the Burbank Leader,

111 W. Wilson Ave., Glendale, CA 91203. Please spell your name and

include your address and phone number for verification purposes only.