09/07/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Mr. Long, in regard to the de novo appeal process, said it was like having two original trials. He said it would set up all sorts of possible strategies, i.e., delays, unfavorable position of legal , talents and economic resources, and numerous problems for staff. He . said, based on past experience, the two original hearings are not efficient and .sometimes not fair. Mr. Obie wondered what the present practice was on the appeals for PUD's. Mr. Saul replied it is now based on lion the record.1I He noted, however~ there had only been one appeal to date under PUD regulations. Mayor Keller felt that both stages should be heard by one group. Mr. Delay was willing to go along with that as long as appeal to City Council was maintained. Mayor Keller noted there would not be that many appeals based on the past experience, and this would be for a trial period only and could be changed in the future. Mr. Lieuallen saw three issues involved: 1) splitting the stages, about which he did not feel strongly; 2) the two levels of appeal, about which he felt a little more strongly--noting he was willing to give it a try but felt the Planning Commission should not be bypassed so there should be a two-step appeal process; and 3) the City Council would have to be accountable through the whole process. He said he did not oppose staff's proposals as long as the appeal process came to the City Council. He felt the appeal also should be lion the record.1I He requested legal staff to explore possibilities for creating a mechanism to accommodate new testimony in these quasi-judicial hearings. Mr. Haws did not feel a two-stage appeal process was proper, but it should be appealed either to Planning Commission or City Council, e because of the time element and money involved. Mr. Obie said, as he saw the proposal, the Planning Commission was giving up part of its workload by allowing the two stages to be heard by a hearings official. He felt the City Council should still be the appealing body, however. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that both diagrammatic and preliminary stages of PUD regulations be reviewed by a hear- ings official, with one appeal to the City Council, with review of the process in nine months. Mr. Bradley said he would not support the motion as he felt the appeal should be IIde novoll to allow open citizen participation. Mr. Lieuallen did not agree, saying it is not that kind of an open process and legal staff could create some mechanism for ground rules to accommodate new testimony. Mr. Delay concurred with Mr. Lieuallen saying Council was not deciding the exact appeals process now, but could address that issue later. It was consensus that Council would request legal counsel to come back with possibilities for creating more open testimony in quasi-judicial hearings. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with Bradley voting no; Haws abstaining; and all other Council members voting aye. . Minutes 9/7/77--8 It;81