Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Long said Mr. William's statement was essentially accurate. He <br /> said the main question in these decisions was "does the proposal <br />. conform to the standards set forth in the City code." He said it was <br /> an administrative judgment. <br /> Mr. Delay felt this was a judgmental process, and the Council is <br /> elected to exercise its judgment. He said if the appeal process was <br /> not to City Council, Council would not be in a position to deal with <br /> problems and/or make changes and adjustments to City Code. He felt <br /> City Council should be exposed to possible defects in the code. <br /> Ms. Smith expressed her opinion that one body should hear both <br /> stages. She would support the Planning Commission's recommendation <br /> that both be heard by the hearings official, and noted this would not <br /> lock in the Council as it could review and change the process in the <br /> future. She also noted her support of this decision by citing the <br /> workload of the Planning Commission. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen said he would like the Planning Commission to hear both <br /> stages. He felt it was necessary to define City Council.s accounta- <br /> bility and if the process went through a hearings official to the <br /> court, there would not be that accountability. His understanding of <br /> the Fasano procedures was that they were designed to keep the process <br /> open and not politicize it. <br /> Mr. Long said the Council notion that they decide matters on esta- <br /> blished criteria predates the Fasano design by a great deal. He noted <br />e the Council is dealing with judgmental decisions in that it has to be <br /> a fair and open process; and that it is appropriate that the decisions <br /> be made by elected officials. <br /> Ms. Smith reiterated her feeling that both stages should be heard by <br /> one body, and did not have any problem with an appeal being made to <br /> the City Council. She strongly suggested Council try this method for <br /> a certain period of time and review the process after the trial <br /> period. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission would probably like to <br /> see the appeals, but would recognize that as a Council decision. <br /> Mr. Bradley brought up the issue of the appeal process and whether it <br /> would be a matter of review of record or by de novo. Mr. Long replied <br /> it was the Council's ultimate decision to chose whatever form of <br /> appeal it wished. Mr. Bradley pursued the idea of a de novo appeal, <br /> citing allowance for open discussion and fairness to citizens. Mr. <br /> Saul said Council could face both theoretical and practical problems <br /> with a de novo approach. The practical problem could involve that <br /> frequently in an appeal hearing it is difficult to tell a citizen he <br /> cannot bring up a certain topic. The theoretical problem would include <br /> that under such a process, it might open the door to the possibility <br /> of a citizen saying, "forget it as to the Planning Commission hearing," <br /> and wait for the City Council hearing. He felt there had to be some <br /> determination made by Council as to whether the earlier decision made <br /> was in error. <br />e <br /> Minutes 9/7/77--7 <br /> toEl <br />