07/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wi 11 Carlstrom, 1091 West Broadway, said that not taking the charter to the November election was definitely a political move; candidates would not have the opportunity e to discuss it in their campaigning. With regard to the freeway amendment, he didn't think the proposed revision would give the maximum citizen participation in -. location of transportation routes that was desired when the original amendment was adopted. Although the intent may be to give ample participation, he said, without a diagram of a proposed route and with advertising limited as proposed, there would not be the proper information with regard to effect on neighborhoods. He suggested including a requirement for going to neighborhood groups or some similar actio I in order to give maximum knowledge before a transportation route was designed. Manager said it wasn't the intent of the proposed revision for the public works or any other department to commit resources to planning for a roadway without first have gone through all the processes mentioned by Mr. Carlstrom. Michael Giavino, 2850 Kincaid Street, noted however that the wording of the revision did not actually state that intent. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Haws said his impression was that minor administrative changes were to be taken care of now and that the more controversial items such as the freeway amendment, EWEB, etc., would be brought to a later election. He thought taking the controversial provisions to a later election would be wiser, otherwise the voters would reject the proposed revision and the city would have to continue operating under the present document. Manager said that staff felt the real ambiguities existed in the more controversial sections and decided it would be just as well to tackle them now. Options open to the Council, he said, were to take the revisions ina single document or present separate provisions at a single election. Councilman Murray thought the e document should be taken as a whole to the voters at one election. He noted the assurance given by the Council that there was no intention of making any substantive - changes in the controversial amendments - freeway, collective bargaining, etc. Councilwoman Beal thought the only way to clear up the charter was to present it in a form that would coincide with the procedures in effect. Failing that, procedures would have to be changed to conform to the charter. She said that a decision one way or the other would have to be made some time. Manager noted subcoromittee meeting on EWEB provisions was held this morning and announced a meeting to be held August 2 at 12:00 noon at the Feed Mill with regard to the library. The freeway amendment, hs aid, would be considered in a meeting scheduled for August 3 at 7:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room. There was some question raised by Mrs. Beal about adequacy of the meeting rooms in view of the public interest, but consensus was to continue with the meetings as scheduled. 1-B-l F. Code Amendment re: Christmas tree and fireworks sales and seasonal signs Amendments to City Code Sections 9.408, 9.422, 9.436, 9.464 and 8.670 Comm re: Christmas Tree and fireworks sales. 7/14/76 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to call public hearing Pub Hrng for July 26. Motion carried unanimously. The proposed ame~dment, recommended by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1976, would allow sales of Christmas trees and fireworks in commercial and light industrial e districts. Jim Saul, planner) said that staff had recommended that M-l not be included if such sales were premitted in industrial districts because M-l locations are not appropriate for this use. The Commission recommended sales in M-2 zones. Since M-3 districts allow anything permitted in M-2, he said, no revision would be necessary for the M-3 zones. Mr. Saul added that the amendment would provide for seasonal signs meeting certain criteria from December 1 to January 1 for sale of Christmas 37/ 7/26/76 - 9