11/22/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""'Il e 73" 11/22/71 I rr il I; Councilwoman Campbell was conerned that, by endorsing this proposal, the :1 Council would be endorsing the entire E-SATS program. She was particularly :1 concerned about the inner loop, as projected in E-SATS. Mr. Buford assured her I that this agreement was for this section only. I " Mayor Anderson suggested that it might be well to gi ve tentati ve approval of the , project, if the Council felt it had enough facts. This would not be binding on the I' ; Council, but would gi ve some guidance to the Planning Commission for a more objecti ve approach. Councilwoman Beal was concerned wi th what kind of recommendation the Council could " give the Planning Commission. Councilman Williams, seconded by Mr. Hershner, moved that the Council indi cate its intention of .~pproving this project at its November 22 meeting and ask' that the Planning e I' Commission prepare suggestions for modification or deletion of the proposal for , Council consideration at that meeting. il ! Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to amend the motion so that, instead of indicating its intention of "approving" this project, the Council would indicate its " '" ,t intention of "reaching a decision" on this project. .'. ;" , ~...\ Councilman Williams explained that he had framed the motion in this way because of 1'\ '. the MaY9r's request that the Planning Commission be given some indication. " i Mayor Anderson agreed that he would like to give the Planning Commission a definite ,I concept: of what the Council had in mind. This might have some bearing on the I Commission recommendations. Mr. Hershner did not feel the Planning Commission should be requested to make a recommendation on such a broad public issue wi thout some direction from the Council. Mr. Mohr agreed, but felt this could be turned around, and the Council could inform the Planning Commission of its intent not to approve the project. This would gi ve them more reason to prove its worth to the Council. Mr. Mohr fel t perl:ap.s, rather than give an indication of approval or disapproval of the project, the Counciili should indi cate narrowly confined agenda limi ts. Mr. Williams commented that, in view of the time frame involved, and in view of the history of the matter, there should be some indication, and this was his reasoning in making the motion. Mrs. Beal said she would still prefer that the Planning Commission make its recommen- dation without any direction from the Council. They are aware of the urgency and the history of the matter. Mrs. Campbell was concerned that the motion, as stated, gave a foregone conclusion I that the Council had endorsed the project. Mr. Williams maintained that the motion , gi ve an indication of what the Council was consideri.ng doing on the night of November 22. I I; Mrs. Beal said that, if she were sure the Planning Commission would accept Mr. Williams motion in the sense that he had explained it, and that the minutes expressed the fact that all members of the Council were not commi tted to this project at this time, she would feel differently about the amendment she had made. e The motion and amendment were read for the benefi t of the Council. Mrs. Beal said her amendment stood as read. - --- Vote taken on amendment to main motion. Messrs. Mohr, McDonald,' Mrs.. Campb~ll and Mrs. Beql voted yes. Messrs. Williams, Hershner and Teague voted no. Moti on to amend carried. Vote taken on main motion as amended. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mayor Anderson thanked the staff for its broad, objective presentation. Meeting of November 22, minutes - The Planning Commission took action at its noon meeting, after public hearings November 16 and 18, to postpone a decision on this contract. On Friday the City Manager and several staff members attended a~meeting with the State Highway Commission officials which was to clarify questions raised I at the Planning Commission hearings. At that meet ing, staff was informed that the Highway Department had just learned that the Federal government would require an Environmental Impact Statement on this project. It had been the understanding this statement would not be required on this project because of its pre-commitment. It was agreed that any further official action toward implementation of this program II should be delayed. The Planning Commission had many questions and COnErns which it felt should be included within the review process, and these were included in a report to the City e Council. City Manager read the report, and said if the Council wished to accept the Planning Commission recommendation for postponement, any discussion of the merits 11/22/71 - 2 .....