COMM. 032 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Page 2 March 6, 1979 such as under the former Board of Supervisors/Chairman approach or the British Parliamentary form of government--confirmation would be appro- priate. The concept of separation of powers implies• that each branch would • have the ability to provide "reasonable checks" on each other. Ac- cordingly, to make this concept meaningful, the legislative branch should have its own staff support. Care, however, should be exercised to avert a direct duplication of functions relegated to the executive branch. The Planning Department presently consists of its Director, Plan- ning Commission, and Board of Appeals. Each entity has its specific function within the structural framework of the department and thus pro- vide the necessary level of checks and balances which are so vital to the planning process. As -such, I do not foresee any great need for any significant changes in the department' s structural organization save for those mentioned herein. In the past, I have noted that the Planning Commission has heard and acted upon a multitude of variance requests from the -Subdivision and • Zoning Codes. Under the existing language, only the Planning Commission is empowered to perform this function, although many requests have in- volved rather minor deviations from the aforementioned codes and could conceivably be processed administratively. In that regard, I would like to suggest that appropriate language be inserted to allow the Planning Commission to delegate some of its variance functions to the Planning Director. As the bulk of the Commission' s activity right now focuses on such requests, the amount of time to concentrate on broad planning policy matters is quite small. In the matter of. the Board of Appeals, there should be greater clarity in the phrase "sustain the appeal. " For example, if a person' s variance request were deniedby the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals "sustains the appeal, " does this mean that (1). the variance is granted or (2) the variance is remanded to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. If the variance is granted by the Board, then there should be such language in the Charter. Presently, only the Planning Commission can grant variances. I would like to further suggest that the reference to item (e) of the Planning Commission's functions relating to State Land. Use Commission boundary changes be deleted. By State Statute, the Planning Commission does not automatically provide recommendations. Perhaps, and to best