06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hershner folt the matter should be disposed of, as did Councilman Murray'. felt not to do so would be going against legal advice of the city's and ERA's and would not serve the public interest. They attorneys (Oe) Assistant City Attorney Stan Long was asked to cormnend on Mr. Hamme'l's statement that the city might be faced with extensive litigation before anything could be done. Mr. Long noted the City Attorney's suggestion that the vacation proceed, with the courts settling any dispute about compensation. Wi t)1 .regard to delay be"cause of litigation if the alleys' were vacated., he said that ERA could file a condemnation suit and apply for a court order allowing immediate possession to facilitate construction. " Councilman Williams said he would vote in favor of vacating the alleys, but he felt there were two questions needing resolution - whether PNB's rights in the alley needed to be terminated and whether the language of the franchise needed consideration. 'He hoped in the future that rights 'of utility companies, ERA, or others could be determined prior to consideration of right-of-way vacations by the Council. And he felt there was danger of , infringing upon the rights 6f the utility companies. He thought there could be sub- stantial cost to PNB's ratepayers without compensation and with questionable benefit to those ratepayers. . . e Councilman Hershner felt the only issue in this instance was that of compensation and that that would be settled in the courts. In previous consideration of alley vacation wi;ehin the ERA proj ectarea it was a matter of public right versus private right of the redeveloper. He' expressed.concern . that .PNBwasun~illing to enter. into s'omekind of stipulat~~ situation so the courts could decide whether they were entitled to compensation, saying it was a legal question rather than a political one. " . Councilwoman Campbell inquired about costs involved in ~liconstruction in the civic center, -- who was paying, were they shared -- in view of complaints received from citizens with regard to successive instances of opening streets by different utilities. Mr. Haverkamp, PNB engineer, replied that they do work with other utilities and with the' governing body in construction projects. However, it isn't always possible to know at the time one utility is working that another project 'will be necessary. Manager added that the city has had excellent 'co-operation from PNB in the downtown area as well as in the rest of the city. There is a good relationship and the city is appreciative of the fact that the phone company is dressing up their faci'lities in the downtown area to be more attractive and to fit into the downtown redevelopment. He didn't expect that to change in the future. Councilman Keller thought that settlement of the issue would really be up to the developer and PNB. He recognized the general cormnent that all agencies were co-operating; yet the fact remained; he said, that the streets were still dug up. Mayor Anderson felt that both PNB and the developer of the hotel proposed for the blo'ck in question would fact higher costs should the project be delayed. He supported vacation of the alleys if for no other reason than to' clarify the issue as quickly as' possib'le. . e Vote was taken on motion for second reading. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr., Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the council bill' be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared pas'sed andnumbered.17101., .. (0769 ) B. Rezonihg property west of Highway 99N, south of Concord, east 'of Jacobs' Drive (Hansen) From RA to C-2 PD( Z 74-6) Denial recommended by the Planning Cormnission March 12, 1974. Upheld by Council in appeal hear April 8, 1974. ( . Manager explained that hearing was scheduled for reopening 'on petitlon from Robert Moulton, attorney for the petitioner, that the question of public need had not been properly presented. ,II Councilman Keller noted that he had not voted on the Council\s initial decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of rezoning. He wondered whether he could vote if new testimony was presented. Assistant City Attorney Stan Long replied that if a Council m~mber had reviewed transcript of previous testimony and exhibits and felt himself qualified to participate, it was app~opriate to do so. If there had been no opportunity to review the evidence,. then it would be.inappropriate ,to participate. Mayor Anderson reopen~d the public hearing., limiting testimony' to the matter of public need only. Co 80 5 ) Robert Moulton, attorney representing Paul Hansen, distributed. to Council memb'ers copies. of prepared testimony and a memo of law covering' elements 'of public need for C'ouncil consideration in determining whether there was public need for the rezoning requested. He summarized the material presented and quoted'legal opinions, stating that a general ~. l~ 6/i0!74 - 3