CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

355 an important enough improvement to justify approval . In similar applica- tions , Planning Director explained that in some instances the developers had come back with a better quality alternative proposal , and the Com- mission was receptive . Mr . Daniel Monaco , 1512 S . El Camino Real , San Mateo , attorney representing Mr . Tehaney, quoted description of " environment " from the Environmental Quality Act , and felt that adverse factors mentioned in the EIR such as economic , balance of residential versus non-- resi-- dential , sewage disposal plant , were not relevant to environmental considerations . Further , the EIR is informational , and must show a significant effect on the environment . He also indicated that certain areas of activity are exempted as being ministerial , and this would include issuance of building permits . He noted however , that the ordinance provides for an Architectural Committee , which is discretionary , and therefore , "by the back door " the determination gets into the environmental impact requirements , since issuance of an Architectural Permit must precede application for a Building Permit . He indicated that as he understood it , the development complied in every respect with all Zoning requirements . He noted that application had not been made as yet , to either the Architectural Committee , or for. a Building Permit , but the applicant felt it would be of benefit to have a favorable decision from the Council before making those applications . Regardless of the outcome , how- ever , the applicant recognized he would still be entitled to apply for permit subject to architectural controls . City Attorney noted that the appeal was brought under the procedures established for implementing the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 , and concurred that the discretionary entitlement required by the applicant was an Architectural Permit . However , he indicated that he felt that the Environmental Quality Act permitted an EIR to have a much broader scope and could be advisory for other actions City might wish to take , including rezoning if that is indicated . He felt that Council ' s attention should be directed to 'whether this EIR is adequate , and the conclusions reached by Planning Commission in the report are reasonable and proper in accordance with the evidence , and also whether the recommendation of the Commission is reasonable based on factors established in the report . He agreed that this did not prevent the applicant from going before the Architectural Committee . The point was the appeal was brought under City ' s regulations for preparation of an EIR , and not on a denial of any application . Mr . Monaco commented that their concern was that an unfavorable outcome by Council would be detrimental to his client in that the Architectural Committee would be influenced by that decision . He spoke with respect to comments that the sewage treatment plant was nearing maximum capacity, feeling when that time comes , there would be a moratorium on building , but meantime , it should be first come , first served . With respect to the matter of sewage treatment capacity , Councilman Weymouth noted that Council had received that day a copy of letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicating City was approaching maximum capacity , and that therefore it was a valid environmental concern . City Attorney added that , with regard to the relevancy of economic factors , he felt it 4/23/73 Leg . Mtg .