01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. -- Councilman Bradley expressed his concern that cost of constructing this type storage would add to the overall cost of housing and be passed on to the renter. He wondered tooo about the physical appearance of such space, whether it would be of concrete. Mr. Chenkin explained that no particular bike storage space was under discussion, and that storage space was now a code requirement for multiple-family housing. This amendment would merely require minimum dimensions where currently it is more or less taken for granted that adequate space would be provided. Vote was taken on the motion for second reading as stated. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17513. . 3. Appointments, Human Rights Commissions Note: Committee minutes of January 14 and 21 cover general discussion. See under consent calendar these minutes. Manager reviewed the original provisions of the human rights ordinance with regard to selection of human rights commissions members through open application and interview of finalists by the City Council. The revision proposed by action in committee (see minutes January 21) would provide simply for appointment by the City Council. He added that copies of all citizen interest forms had been distributed to Council members and to the press. Recommendations for appointment of certain applicants had also been distributed to the Council. II-A-5 Councilman Keller thought that Council members, before opening the issue to a public hearing, should discuss the amendment drafted for consideration. He felt if there was consensus on intent with regard to appointment of commission members, then perhaps a public hearing would not be necessary. He asked the city attorney again to explain terms of the code as now written. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that in his view the present ordinance does not require Council interview of each and every applicant; it requires only interview of those de- termined by some selection process to be finalists. Under revision of Council bylaws recently adopted and creation of the citizen interest form, the ordinance merely directs personal interviews by the full Council as well as full Council review of applications. The ordinance as written also provides some latitude in determining how finalists are selected - it could be by Council subcommittee recommendation or some other process chosen by the Council. Mr. Long added that there is no specification as to the number of finalists to be interviewed, the Council may decide that. - Councilman Williams questioned the requirement for "personal" interview by the full Council and wondered whether written interview would be satisfactory. Mr.Long answered that if the Council bylaws were used, they clearly state "personal" interview. If the bylaws are not used, then there would have to be some inter- pretation of the word "interview." He said it seemed pretty clear that the com- mittee drafting the bylaws revision intended personal Council interviews. Mayor Anderson could see no reason for adopting the amendment. The present ordinance could stand, he said, and selection of members of the human rights groups could proceed on Council motion. Councilman Keller added that guidelines 35 1/26/76 - 9