The SF city council will be considering many things tonight.
First in the informational meeting at 4 PM, they will tell us the snowgate test results (even though they have been successfully used across the nation for over 40 years, apparently our ONE snowfall test results trump that). I fully expect the mayor to recommend using them city wide and using this as a campaign issue if he decides to run for mayor again.
Then during the council meeting the council will decide;
Whether you can have chickens.
One councilor has already told me they are voting against it because our current nuisance ordinances cover many of the things this ordinance does. That, and there is no reason why we should have to get permission from your neighbor to have a certain kind of animal. Pretty soon you will have to ask your neighbor’s permission to park your car in your own driveway. Item #29, this is a second reading, so expect some amendments and voting on it. There may even be deferral.
If you can sponsor a park bench.
Item #33 is basically changing the way naming rights will be granted in the community. It used to be quite simple, with just council approval, if the ordinance changes (this is just first reading) it will go thru several committees (appointed by the mayor) before it is finally thrown in the city council’s lap. In my opinion, this is just a backdoor effort to take control away from the city council. Sure, they get to vote on the final approval, but really have no say in the process (think EC naming rights). And when they finally do get to see a proposal, it will have already been through several committees and meetings that the council really doesn’t have knowledge of. I think they should keep things the way they are. If you want to give money to have your name on public property, you should go thru the planning commission, then on to the council for a vote. It just seems to me this is a way for the mayor and Econ office to stick their nose in the process and keep the council in the dark, it’s been working very well for them so far, why mess with success?
Annexing land for Walmart
Item #35 going to be a contentious one. Basically expanding the city limits to include a Walmart and other retailers. I am not opposed to growth, and I certainly am not opposed to the tax revenue for the city. But I have often thought we should focus on the core of our city and work outward from there. This debate is going to get ugly, really quick. I suggest councilor Erpenbach takes a bathroom break before they get to this item.
(PDF Map: 27248304022013125651678