[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5-27-09

[Ruth Link]

Hi Bob,

 

Thank you for taking the time each week to write up these recaps, it truly
is helpful!  

 

Personally, I'm not sure if I like or dislike the idea of banning cell phone
use while driving.  I hate to see behavior mandated, but also recognize that
some people (myself included at times) drive poorly when on a cell phone.
Of course life is distracting and I've been known from time to time to drive
distracted while not on a cell phone as well. J

 

My comment has to do with removing bicycles.  I agree that if a pedestrian
was hit by a bike the damage would be far less than if by a car. However you
must consider that an irresponsible cyclist can cause an accident with
vehicles where injuries (most likely to the cyclist) will occur.  Also they
can cause injuries to that pedestrian, even if less severe.  However unlike
a vehicle, there is no liability coverage for a cyclist.  If this does pass,
I think it would be irresponsible and short sighted to not include bicycles
in the ban!

 

Thanks,

 

Ruth A. Link

Public Affairs Director, MOR

 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:50 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5-27-09

 

Greetings,

This morning we revisited the cell phone driving ban in Public Safety.  The
same issues from the prior discussions were rehashed. The ordinance failed
on a six to three vote. It will go to the floor on Monday with a
recommendation to deny. Jason, Pam, and Dave voted in Favor. Myself, Ed,
John, Jon, Dick, and I think Lynn voted against. The other folks are not
members of that committee. I can't remember if Renee was there.  If she was,
she voted against it.  I will support the ordinance as a secondary offence.
I will offer that amendment again on the floor.  I also want to strike the
part about applying it to bicycles.  I am not defending poor cycling
behavior but cell phone use by cyclists is not a big problem in our world.
Cyclists trying to talk on the phone are also not creating the same kind of
hazard as someone driving a car.  No matter how many times some folks say
it, a 25 pound bicycle is not the same as a 3000 pound car.

 

In PAZ we took up the matter of setting a public hearing for the zoning
rewrite.  In planning for the meeting we anticipated that the issue of
amending zoning versus rezoning would be important so Roger Millar prepared
a presentation covering this issue. This set the stage for a fairly heated
discussion. Roger gave what I thought was a very clear explanation of how
there are two methods by which zoning can be changed. You can rezone
property or make general amendments to the zoning code.  There are different
standards and rules for notice that apply to the different situations.  We
are doing general amendments to the zoning code and are clearly following
the rules. Technically, all we need to do is put a notice in the paper for
two weeks and then we can edit them in just about any way we want. The
public participation component of this process has been over the top
obsessive. At one point in the meeting Jason challenged the committee
members to find any other community in the country that has had a more
inclusive zoning amendment process ever in the history of zoning. I would
agree that we have probably set some kind of record.

 

But the issue won't die. Folks keep bringing up that they thought it would
only be a cleanup and there would not be any substantive changes. If there
are substantive changes then that makes it a rezone. Roger explained that
substantive changes to the zoning definitions are not the trigger that
defines a rezone of someone's property. Substantive changes are allowed in a
general edit to the code. The difference has to do with if you are changing
the zoning of a particular property from one definition to another. Not if
you are amending the specifics of the zoning definition city wide. The city
attorney has weighed in on this and supported this position. The opponents
want the council to hire an outside attorney to offer a second opinion.  

John Hendrickson has made a referral to the committee of the whole to
discuss hiring an outside attorney in this capacity.  Ed won't put it on the
agenda. This really steams these guys. Dick had some choice words today for
Ed on this account. I can't really speak for Ed but I suspect he doesn't
want to go forward with this because the OPG position supported by the city
attorney is really straight forward and it just looks like a red herring.

The motion to set the public hearing passed six to five with Marilyn absent.
There is a short list of substantive issues to be discussed after the
planning board reviewed the document with a fine tooth comb over the course
of seventeen meetings.  Folks are encouraged to notify OPG if they have
additional items to add to that list. We were given the material as hard
copies today but I would suspect that it is available on zoningmissoula.com
and will be linked to our minutes. We will have a pre-public hearing meeting
in a couple of weeks to discuss some of the issues. After the public hearing
we will work through the various issues during the summer. I'm hoping we
will be done by the end of July.

 

In A&F we talked about maintenance districts again. Nothing conclusive came
of it. The committee is looking for some more information before we direct
staff to go forward with anything.

 

In Public Works we discussed speed limits again. We started with George
Elmer Drive off of Mullan. It was engineered as a 45 mile an hour arterial
highway.  But what is evolving out there are relatively dense (4/acre)
neighborhoods with parks and kids and the like. The big street may work
right now since it is still a big field but before long we are going to have
a problem. The city engineer did a traffic study and recommended leaving it
at 45. We didn't change it at this meeting but it is likely that it will go
lower as we find ways to make traffic calming modifications to that roadway
in the future.

We also discussed the speed limits in the rattlesnake. The committee did
pass a motion directing staff to come up with what was needed to lower the
35 mile an hour zones to 30 on both Rattlesnake and Greenough.

 

Budget committee was a little slow today. I still need a little time to get
all caught up on the reading so I didn't have much to say. Maybe by next
week we'll be ready to get into something substantive.           

 

Thanks for your interest,

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

406-728-1052



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4112 (20090528) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090528/42f62671/attachment.htm>