|
<br />on this issue was that interest needs to be directed toward total development of the
<br />community, not any one specific area. He hoped the applicant would see his responsi-
<br />bility of allegiance to the entire community in developing the area. The Mayor added _-
<br />that perhap$ now the 19,90 General Plan can be reviewed so ,that the City's objectives
<br />of a good environment and sound economic growth can be developed.
<br />Manager noted that adoption of an ordinanc,e would be necessary to implement the zone
<br />change. He submitted ~he following council bill:
<br />Council Bill No. 388 - Rezoning to C-2 PD the area located north of the
<br /> , ,Willamette River and directly west of Valley River
<br />Center, incorporating therein the findings of fact and conditions of rezoning
<br />set forth in Councilman Williams motion, was read by~council bill pumber and
<br />title only, there being no cQuncilman present requesting that it be read in full.
<br />Mrs. Beal moved second~d by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time
<br /> , .
<br />by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that
<br />enactment be considered at this time.
<br />Councilman Williams said he clearly indicated in his motion at the August 27 meeting that
<br />it was to be the first reading of a council bill effecting the rezoning, thereby requir-
<br />ing at this meeting a vote only on final passage. (Council bills cannot be given second
<br />reading on the same night they are introduced without unanimous consent of the Council.)
<br />Mr. Williams felt deferring the issue ,should unanimous consent ,not :be given to second .
<br />reading would re~Ult in altering the outcome of the issue because of possible absence
<br />of Council member or members. He asked Vern Gleaves, attorney representing Valley River,
<br />to read from transcript of that meeting prepared by a court reported keeping record of
<br />the meeting, for him (Gleaves). Mr. Gleaves read from the transcript the portion in
<br />which Mr. Williams' motion was made and said he was sure the intent of the motion at that
<br />time was to give first reading to a rezoning ordinance, even though the issue went back
<br />to the Planning Commission because of action contrary to the Commission's recommendation.
<br />Mrs. Beal felt her position would be difficult if she voted "aye" for unanimous consent
<br />when she opposed the rezoning. Mr. Murray said he would not change his vote simply for
<br />the sake of protocol.
<br />Considerable discussion followed with regard to minutes of the meeting which did not re-
<br />cord vote on ~n actual council bill, although they qid indicate that Mr. Williams' motion
<br />to rezone carried.
<br />Mr. Williams strongly objected to possibility of carrying the council bill over to another
<br />meeting in view of the lengthy hearings and, deliberations already experienced. He main-
<br />tained the transcript of the meeting read by Mr. Gleaves was correct and,that initial
<br />reading of. the, rezoning ordinance was given on August 27, even though a bill as such was
<br />not presented. Unless second reading of a bill presented at 1;his meeting was given .
<br />unanimous consent, he said, the result would be that rezoning of the area would be based
<br />on who is or is not present at the next Council meeting.
<br />Councilman Hershner supported Mr. Williams' stand and urged completion of, the action at
<br />this meeting. He thought it ridiculous to stand on the technicality of whether the bill
<br />was in written form when it was the intent to rezone.
<br />There was further discussion with suggestion to amend the August 27 minutes to provide
<br />for first reading of a council bill. Manager read the minutes covering that portion of
<br />the August 27 meeting which reflected Mr. Williams' intent that his motion be considered
<br />as first reading of the ordinance, and City Attorney's comment that action contrary to
<br />the Planning Commission recommendation would automatically refer the issue to a joint
<br />session where findings of fact could be included in the action. Manager pointed out that
<br />unanimous consent at this time would be on second reading of the bill, not on its content.
<br />He suggested perhaps a tabling motion, s~tting aside the second reading to allow amendment
<br />to the August 27 minutes, then removai from the table and proceeding to copsider the
<br />motion for final approval.
<br />Councilwoman Beal and Councilman Wood said they would give consent to second reading of
<br />the bill presented at, this meeting iT). order not to delay action, then they would express
<br />their opposition on the motion to approve. Councilman Murray said he did not want to vote --
<br />in favor of the, bill, yet was not interested, in delaying action further, so he would ab-
<br />stain from voting on second reading. Councilman McDonald commented on the many times he ~'='"
<br />had voted in favor of second reading in ord~r not to delay the final decision on a bill.
<br /> ,.- ,. .
<br />Vote was taken on the motion to read the cOUncil,bill the second time by ~"
<br />counci,l bill number only and-consider ena,ctm~ni;, at,,,tnis time. ' Motioncarr.ite"d=,f~'''.
<br />. . -.' -. ." .. . _.'O-.~ . ....... .
<br />'ail'councilmeri preseri:fvotirig''''aye,'exc:ept Councilmen McDonald, Campbell, and
<br />Murray abstaining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number
<br />only.
<br /> 302- 10/8/73 - 8
<br />
|