CC MIN 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_ _ .._ ....... 39 � who hears variances and use permits, and the time of public hearings. He stated that the restructuring of the Planning Comnission was pre- sented as the up-to-date procedure established or being established in most modern cities and suggested that the result of his research does not support that fact, acknowledging that his statistics relate only .�* to San Mateo County. Mr. Berlin stated his concern that members of the public might be deprived of their right to be heard and his belief �,,, that hearings on permits should be more easily heard by the pubiic than is possible when the Zoning Administrator hears applicants on Wednesday mornings, suggesting that evening hearings would be more de- sirable. Corrmissioner Berlin also suggested that Council should have confidence in the decisions of the Planning Comnission and complained that in some cases applicants have not provided a full presentation to the Comnission, and when their application was denied, have provided entirely new and different information to the City Council on appeal . He distributed copies of the January 16 Planning Commission Agenda, stating that the restructuring of the Comnission had left them with no real business. General discussion continued concerning responses to statements made by Comnissioner Berlin; the fact that th�ere have been no complaints about the morning hearings by the Zoning Administrator; the easy access of applicants to the City Council if they wish to appeal decisions; the fact that a study has been undertaken regarding establishment of "fast food operations in the City; the inevitability of differences of �� opinion between the Planning Comnission and the Council as well as among merr�ers of each body; and the desirability of having a variety of .opini.ons. � . It was generally agreed that when entirely new information or substantial �` changes are presented to the City Council at the appeal hearing by those whose applications have been denied by the Planning Comnission, the '"�' entire matter, along with the additional information should be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the entire application. Observation was made that such procedure would discourage applicants from attempting to circumvent the Planning Commission. Mayor Barrett corivnented concerning present and potential future involve- ments of the Planning Commission and referred to the sheet of 40 such items prepared by Planning Director Schroeter and distributed to those present. He stated that his or�n top priority would be consideration of the economic development of the Main Street area and the area south of it to Woodside Rbad, noting that state and federal funding might be available for some of the mucfi needed improvements. He also called attention to the El Camino Real Project which is nearing completion and the desirability of encouraging private investment in upgrading the area now that the public agencies have done so. He also recomnended that Planning Comnissioners attend the valuable sessions on specific subjects related to planning wMich are offered by different agencies in order to keep current on modern planning methods. It was pointed out that in spite of publishing of notices, very often a matter considered by the Planning Commission receives little publicity before the hearing, but that when the decision is reported in the press, �•�•. controversy may comnence and citizens and others may provide consider- able information to Council which was not available at the Comnission ;�,,,,, hea ri ng. Chairman Britschgi inquired again concerning staff support and City Manager Fales responded regarding the need to generate a work program Jt.Mtg. Council/Ping. 1/15/79 Page 2