Laserfiche WebLink
274 <br />Councilman Petersen moved to accept the report and recommendation to forego <br />participation in this year's San Mateo County Floral and Fiesta Display, <br />seconded by Councilman Henderson. In discussion Council commented on the <br />excellence of representation by the Park Department in the past, and City <br />Manager noted there had been a split vote by Park and Recreation Commission to <br />enter this year, and that in reviewing the matter with their Budget Committee, <br />he had informed them of what the recommendation would be, for budget reasons, <br />particularly in the area of manpower. It was indicated that last year this <br />represented 600 man-hours and $2,080, plus materials. Motion carried. <br />(MINUTE ORDER #70-111) <br />Councilman Weymouth moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 1456 AMENDING SECTION 3.122 <br />OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RELATING TO MAXIMUM AREA OF SIGNS <br />IN NON -RESIDENTIALLY <br />ZONED <br />DISTRICTS, <br />seconded by Councilman <br />Petersen and <br />carried on roll call <br />vote, <br />Councilman <br />Henderson voting no. <br />Councilmen Arnett <br />and Keckley noted absent. <br />Councilman Petersen moved to adopt Ordinance adding Section 60.4.1 to Ordinance <br />No. 1130, the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, rezoning property in the vicinity <br />of Second Avenue and Broadway, seconded by Councilman Weymouth. Public hearing <br />had been held, and ordinance introduced at Council meeting of June 8 which was <br />subsequently published, <br />Councilman Henderson felt that request made by members of the Board of <br />Directors of the Chamber of Commerce for opportunity to examine circumstances <br />should be considered, and suggested adoption of the ordinance be held until <br />the next meeting. City Attorney advised that the matter was subject to <br />public hearing, and if intent was to reopen the public hearing, republication <br />and notice would be required as well as notice given the proponent. To <br />continue the matter would merely continue the adoption of the ordinance. <br />In the ensuing discussion, previous action was reviewed, There were some <br />objections to the effect that a thorough public hearing had already been held <br />and formal and proper action had been taken, Councilman Henderson indicated <br />that it appeared some of the members of the Board of Directors who had <br />subscribed to the original action were not fully informed of the facts, and <br />this was the basis of their request, <br />Councilman Rhodes questioned the reason statements were permitted by the public <br />in the Whipple Avenue -El Camino traffic plan, considered earlier in the <br />agenda, while not permitted on this item. City Attorney explained the <br />