Laserfiche WebLink
RES. 66=2 <br />V.A. 2189-HONER <br /> <br />Councilm-u Gilmore disqualified <br />himself because of a conflict of <br />interest and left the Council <br />table. <br /> <br />RE~0UJTION 66-2 OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COM2&ISSION AND DENYING <br />VARIANCE ON APPLICATION NO. 2189 FIT~ BY ALLISON HONER CO. was presented to <br />Council. Discussion followed of the problem of the Municipal Code requiring <br />decisions by resolution on zoning matters; a resolution requiring a majority <br />vote and the effect of a tie vote at the prior meeting at which time Council <br />makes its determination. <br /> <br />A change in procedures so that the original action of Council would be sustained <br />at the time of the adoption of the resolution w~s suggested. The City Attorney <br />pointed out that in Judicial proceedings it would take a majority vote to over- <br />rule an accomplished decision of a lower bo~y. Mayor Harvey noted the chair <br />had ruled ~mthe ~ievo~e~t~he~-la~.meet~ng,:be~E::mnabl~ to obtain the:~ <br />Attorney"s ruling, and suggested the questions Be referred to the Attorney <br />for resolution today, <br /> <br />Councilman NcMichael moved that the decision of the Council at the last legal <br />meeting be upheld and that the resolution be prepared and signed as so indicated. <br />The motion was seconded by Councilm-n Markel. Mayor Harvey replied to a question <br />from the Clerk that this was action on the resolution before Council, the reading <br />of which would be waived. <br /> <br />Councilman Brooks stated he was going to vote for the motion, not to change his <br />original decision, but because the Council had By tie vote denied the variance <br />and his vote for the resolution would Be to sustain the intent of Council. <br /> <br />Fred Forgy, attorney for the variance applicant, suggested the question of <br />overruling action of a lower body by tie vote be submitted to the City Attorney <br />to avoid possible legal action. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION 66-20VEHRULING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING CO~ISSION AND DENYING <br />VARIANCE ON APPLICATION NO. 2189 was adopted on roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES, COUNCII~4EN: Brooks, Markel, McNichael, Harvey <br />NOES, COUNCII~4EN: Burk, Herrin <br />ABSTAIN, COUNCIIA~EN: Gilmore <br />ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None <br /> <br />Councilman Gilmore returned to the Council table. <br /> <br />CONFLICT OF INTEREST Following a discussion of what <br /> constitutes a conflict of interest, <br /> the City Attorney was requested to <br /> furnish to Council information <br />regarding this subject, including that available from the League of California <br />Cities. <br /> <br />RES. 66-3 RESOLUTION 66-3 AM~fDING SECTION 3 <br />PAYROLL CLk~K OF RESOLUTION NO. 58-281 TO ADD <br /> THE CLASS TITLE OF PAYROLL CLEF/( <br /> was read By title. It was moved <br />hy CouncJlm-n ]]rooks; seconded By Councilman Burk that further re~ding be <br />waived and Resolution 66-3 be adopted. On roll call vote: <br /> AYES, COUNCILMEN: Gilmore, Brooks, Burk, Herrin, Markel, <br /> McMichael, Narvey <br /> NOES, COUNCILMEN: None <br /> ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None <br /> <br />C~<g~NCIL - 433 - January 3, 1966 <br /> <br /> <br />