11/05/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... Councilwoman Beal said she was reluctant to subject Montgomery Ward and the petitioners to going through another rezoning procedure, but she did stress the relationship of this rezoning to the Goodpasture Island area study and said she thought the Council's decision to rezone would prejudice the study. Mayor Anderson felt it a mistake to zone in an attempt to influence a future land use plan. He thought rather an exist- . ing plan should be used. He said that at some point a decision must be made because of the interplay between planning and zoning; a land use plan has to be the foundation for zoning decisions. He said that if the Council feels its decision was faulty, then perhaps a rehearing would be in order. He called attention to the hearings on I this issue and complete discussion of findings of fact and said if there is new evi- dence, either from ERA or some other group, they have the privilege of bringing it : to the Council. i I \ Vern Gleaves, attorney for Valley River, noted that OSPIRG stated their request for ; rehearing was made after careful study of evidence in the record. He called attention to the fact that there was no transoript of the record as such. For that reason people attempting to use only staff notes should know there is substantial evidence of which ~: . they may not be aware. Mr. Gleaves. explained the procedure leading to EQC approval , of the parking facility and noted that the DEQ staff recommendation concurred that there would be no air pollution problem in connectio~ witb the facility. He thought the OSPIRG statement was wrong wi th respect to DE() twice refusing to recommend ap- proval of the Valley River expansion because of air pollution problems. Their con- cern, he said, was what was going to be required so far as efforts to further the use' of mass transi t . All of these concerns, IIr. Gleaves said, were made known to the l_- Council in hearings on 'the rezoning ~ssue.' He expla~nedtheactlon of the EQC finally culminating in approval of 872 parking spaces for the proposed development. . He reviewed the sequence of hearings at which the rezoning itself was discussed and said there appears to be no evidence presented by OSPIRG nor issues with re- gard to the Fasano decision which haven't been heard at least once, and some many times, before both the Planning Commission and the Council. He agreed wi th the Ci ty Attorney's opinion that the rezoning cannot properly be reconsidered, only that , the rezoning process would have to be initiated again. And in that instance, he i said, the burden of proof would be with the petitioner that the Council was'wrong , in its decision. ~ Councilman Williams quoted from the findings of fact with regard to meeting public need having to db with provision of employment by retaining Montgomery Ward's in i , this area. He said if the Council erred in finding that employment was a public need, tha t instead it is a pr i va te need, then it erred in a way tha t no rehearing would change his mind. Mr. Stacey agreed that employment was a public need, but he . contended that in moving Ward's to the Valley River area there would be no appreciable ; change in the employment situation for. the metropolitan area. They question whether the move constitutes a legal public need. Councilman Murray noted Mayor Anderson's comment that Council members should vote in favor of rehearing on.ly if they consider the findings of fact wrong and inaccurate. He said he does believe that, but he hesitated to go through another round of hear- , ings. He noted rehearing could only be on motion by someone who voted in favor of i -- the rezoning, or if nekl evidence was found. He said he agreed with OSPIRG's view- point but could see nothing new in their presentation. He hadn't yet had an oppor- tunity to review the information received from ERA, but felt if ERA had new evidence, that might merit consideration and further discussion. Mr. Murray added that he now regrets having abstained from voting on second reading of the council bill rezoning the Valley River property, and that he would not do it again in similar circumstances, especially when presented with a lengthy motion on the spot listing alleged findings, many in error or unsubstantiated claims, without the opportunity for review. He stated his feeling that the listed findings were riddled with error to the point where it was polit.ically embarrassing and legally precarious, and that the general procedure followed was faulty. Councilman Hershner said if the procedure for reversing a rezoning decision is to start a new rezoning process, Council members should have a clear understanding of the procedure. There is the possibility that every time some person or some agency feels there is information which should be heard, an endless procession of hearings could be init#ated. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of his position with regard to voting on this issue if it is reconsidered in view of his having to abstain before. City Attorney advised that he would be qulaified to vote on a new application filed for (. rezoning the Valley River property. Mr. Stacey expressed the opinion that Mr. Murray's comments justified rehearing - arguments that there was substantial error in findings of fact. He added that there is precedence in the courts for rehearing by public bodies acting in a quasi- judicial capacity. At Manager's request for comment on adequacy of the Council'S findings, City Attorney said that although it is difficult at this time to pinpoint the evidence supporting each specific finding, it was his opinion that there is ade- quate evidence to support the findings and that they are legal and sufficient. He said that evidence supporting findings of fact doesn't mean that. any particular member 340 11(5(73 - 13