Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, November 21, 1996, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Pcesent: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN MICHAEL DHANENS Absent: JEFFREY TKAC ,. ADVISORY MEMBERSi Present: STAFF: Presenti PUBLIC STATEMENTS LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, ReCording Secretary Renee Donato Nelson requested'that the commission form a committee to formally review the entire notification-process. She asked if she should request this in writing. Chairman Hersh indicated that would be appropriate. Jill Kleiss, Southwest Community Action Committee, stated she assumed the minutes of October 17, 1996 were approved. She requested that the exact motion as presented be followed and that it be cor_rectly reflected' in the case that an item is added to a future agenda. She read the motion verbatim from the tape of this meeting and asked that the city "right the :wrong." Chairman Hersh requesteid clarification of Ms. Kleiss' intent asking-if it was her feeling that motions for future agenda items should be reflected in the minutes verbatim. She stated this was her intent so that nothing is lost in the translation. Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 Page 2 Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Kleiss for ~clarification of her request asking if she is suggesting that the October 17, 1996 minutes need to be amended or is she agreeing that what is represented in the minutes is accurate. She stated her agreement with what is stated in the minutes. She stated procedure needs to be followed with respect to following through with what is placed on future agendas. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Commissioner Tavorn stated he had reviewed the tape from Monday's meeting 'and would participate at this hearing. Chairman Hersh stated he had reviewed the tape from Monday's meeting and would participate at this hearing.' 3. C_ONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Agenda Item #9.1 - General plan consistency finding - vacation of superseded portions of road right-of-way at the.northeast corner of Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road. Agenda Item #9.2 - General plan consistency finding - vacation of the future alley easement reserved in Tract NO. 1348. Agenda Item #9.3 - General plan consistency finding - transfer of a Portion of city-owned drainage basin property to the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation for access to the Friant Kern Canal from Hageman Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve consent agenda items.. Motion carried, 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to apProve minutes of the regular meetings held September 30, October 3, and October 17, 1996. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10374 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one.spoke in' favor or opposition. Fred Porter represented the applicant. He stated agreement with all conditions of approval with the exception of Condition #1.1 which he asked to be modified as followS: "Remove the existing entrance off Mt. Vernon Avenue at the northwest corner of the parcel and co ~nstruct standard curb & gutter, sidewalk, and street paving to tie into the existing improvements north of the parcel map. One entrance onto Mt.Vernon Avenue will be allowed subjecttO Kern County approval centered between Parcels 1 and 2." Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 -. Page 3 Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked .staff for response to requested language change in Condition #1.1. Mr. LaRochelle stated Public Works agreement to this proposed change. Commissioner Boyle asked about access to this project for those traveling southbound on Mt. Vernon Avenue. Mr. LaRochelle said it is left on Bernard Street or a u-turn with a right. CommiSsioner Boyle was concerned about a possible problem with too many people trying to travel too many directions in a short amount of space. Mr: LaRochelle said a raised median will be placed that will help to channelize traffic and minimize the number of movements along with a left turn restriction. Fred Porter said when the median island is installed there will not be a left turn out of the school. '" Commissioner Tavorn was concerned about the fact that on weekends cars at the light coming off Freeway 178 are stacked for a long distance. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt .resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and to approve Proposed 'Tentative Parcel Map 10374 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution, incorporating the revision to Condition No. 7, as stated in the Planning Director's memo dated November 18, 1996, with additional modification as follOws: _C_o~dition #1.1 modified to read as follows: 'RemOve the existing entrance off Mt. Vernon Avenue at the northwest corner of the parcel and construct standard curb & gutter, sidewalk, and street paving to tie into the existing improvements north of the parcel map. One entrance onto Mt:Vernon Avenue will be allowed subject to Kern County approval centered between Parcels 1 and 2. Motion carried. 6. P~IBLL~~G - ZONE CHANGE NO. P96-Q825 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by CommisSioner Ortiz to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and approve Zone Change No. P96-0825 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see Exhibit "1") and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 11/21./96 Page 4 AYES: CommisSioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanensl Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None ABSENTi Commissioner Tkac PUBLIC HEARING -'ORDINANCE AMENDMEN_T_T_O BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 16.28.170 0.3. (CITY OF BAKERSFIELD) Staff report recommending adoption of the ordinance was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition: Barbara Martin represented the Building Indus[ry Association of Kern County. She stated they participated in the drafting of revisions to this ordinance and Stated their support of conditions. She felt it gave the. commission a basis by which to judge the amenities and gives the development community a degree of understanding and allows for creativeness. Public portion of. the hearing was-closed. · Commissioner Tavorn asked for clarification of "advisory agency~' as it is stated in the ordinance and clarification of "active recreational areas." Mr. Grady'said "advisory agency" refers to the Planning Commission and "active indoor recreational areas" refers' to an enclosed facility, however when the committee looked .at this the focus was on something that would be usable and unique t° the project. Commissioner Boyle said the 'committee worked a great deal on the issue of how to address infill projects with areas containing a small amount of land which resUlted in a decision that subdivisions of less than 10 acres in size would not have to provide amenities. However they are required to pay imlieu fees at a rate higher than accrued uses. Commissioner Dhanens felt this amenities issue was a positive step in dealing with small lots'. He asked if a developer chooses one of the first three options would they still pay their normal park in-lieu fees that would otherwise be paid for a single family development. Mr, Grady indicated this is correctl Commissioner Dhanens asked about landscaping with respect to the right-of-way. Mr. Grady said the intent of the ordinance is that landscaping would fit within the existir)g right-of-way. Commissioner Dhanens asked if off-street parking was considered as an amenity. Mr. Grady indicated it was not. In response to discussion, Mr. Grady said some of the design issues would have to be reviewed by the Commission as the applicant offers his proposal for complying with a specific provision. The location of the amenity would be something that would be considered; there will be flexibility at the tentative tract stage. Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 Page 5 Commissioner Ortiz felt this is an' improvement over the 4,000 square foot lot development however he is still concerned about off-street parking and high density with respect to public safety; specifically fire safety. Chairman Hersh was concerned that this was an over-the-counter type approval which the commission would have no discretion over. Commissioner Brady felt although this ordinance isnot perfect it is a dramatic improvement over What has existed. CommiSsioner Boyle asked if a developer wanted to create a common area could it exist outside the development area. Mr. Grady indicated it could be done. Commissioner Brady'clarified for Chairman Hersh that this is. not an over-the-counter remedy. The commission would have discretion at a hearing to determine whether a particular project and the amenities offered justify the small lot subdivision. He felt this proposal.would benefit the city ~ind urged the commission to support it. Commissioner Delgado stated his past concern over the lack of measure by which to judge these requests for small lot subdivisions. Commissioner Tavorn stated his concern over the indoor recreational facility portion with respect to parking for it.' He stated he could not support this.' Commissioner Dhanens suggested off-street parking be included in the list of amenities and active recreational areas. He asked' with respect to the parkway if the committee had given any consideration to what the landscaping would consist of. He alSo asked if the committee's intent is that the 2-1/2 percent of the land is contiguous area. Commissioner Boyle clarified the reason the commission decided on the 10-acre lot size is because when a project smaller than 10 acres is cOnsidered it results in an open space requirement which is not a sufficient enough in size to be usable for anything. Regarding off-street parking he stated his concern with including this in the definition of active recreational areas because the intent is to achieve open space not a parking lot. He gave an example of the amenity being a pool and indoor recreation area which is not 'centrally located asking if the commission would have the discretion to require them to move it to a more central location or to require off-street parking in addition to the :improvement. Mr.' Grady said the intent is that the commission review'location as part of the map approval. With respect to parking, unless this is included as a requirement there is a difficulty in determining how many spaces would be necessary and what standard would be used to judge this by. It was not the intent of the ordinance to require additional land for parking. If this were the desire of the commission the ordinance would have to be amended to include this. Commissioner Boyle stated he had a problem with a requirement that off-site parking be considered as part of a combination area in meeting the 2-1/2 percent requirement. He did not feel it was in the city's best interest to have a 2 percent requirement include parking for active recreational areas. Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 Page 6 'Commissioner Brady felt theparking concern can be easily eliminated'Since mOst of the properties in the city which are zoned R-2 are not that large.. The needfor parking · would .only eXist for a significant piece of R-2 zoned property, in which case the recreational area would be of a signifiCant size. He asked if in this case the commission Would have the ability t'o require that more than one area be constructed so long'as it totals 2 percent.' Mr.. Grady indicated the commission would. Commissioner Delgado felt perhaps there is wisdom in taking the statements of the committee members under Consideration and consider the possibility that there would be some revisions that could answer all of the questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Tavorn to continue this item. Commissioner Dhanens asked if this ordinance would supersede the parking requirements of Title 17 as they relate to provision of recreational amenities. Mr. Grady said this ordinance.addresses private recreational facilities which would serve those people living in the development and parking is not part of this ordinance nor a requirement of Title 17. Larger parks within the city exist with such amenities as basketball which do not have parking and it does not seem to create a problem. He suggested if the commission wishes to add parking it be included as part of the construction of a swimming pool or indoor recreational facility. If the commission WiShes to .apply thestandard from the parking ordinance what will correspondingly happen is that the 2 percent area would need to be larger for accommodation of parking. Commissioner Dhanens asked when the tentative maps are submitted is the. development plan of the lot dedicated for. recreational purposes provided on this map. Mr. Grady indicated this was correct. He stated he would' continue to support this ordinance. Commissioner Brady stated his opposition to placing parking lots around the recreational amenities. The commission is not designing public parks but a benefit to those people living in a small lot subdivision.. He clarified the intent of the ordinance ,being whether or not these guidelines appropriately define what a recreational amenity will be to justify a small lot subdivision. He felt they do and urged the commisSion to support this ordinance. Commissioner Boyle stated his opposition to a continuance based on parking because he felt requiring parking allows for outside use of an amenity that is meant'to accommodate the subdivisiOn in which it is placed. He also cited the fact that parking is not required for other amenities within the city. Commissioner Delgado asked if he could withdraw his motion. Ms. Marino said it could not be done since the motion was seconded. Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 Page 7 Chairman Hersh felt he has been the adversary on this committee because he felt a tendency of this community to streamline projects which he felt results in the loss of creativity. He preferred to continue this item, send it back to committee for discussion rather than send it on a split vote to the council. Commissioner Brady said he would not oppose a motion to continue in order to give those commissioners who have questions time to reflect and to obtain answers, however he did not feel the committee can accomplish anymore than whatthey already have. Commissioner Boyle felt parking is a bad idea and therefore did not feel a Continuance will correct the problem. Motion of continuance failed to' pass by a split vote. Commissioners Hersh, Delgado and Tavorn voted yes. Commissioners Dhanens, Brady and Boyle voted no. Commissioner Ortiz abstained.. Commissioner Ortiz was concerned about finding out in the future that this Was not the correct approach to take. Commissioner Brady said one of the problems the commission has encountered in justifying a small lot subdivision is the vagueness of the language in the current ordinance, however this proposed ordinance amendment defines that the amenities provided are at the discretion of the commission after guidelines are followed. The language provides uniformity and a basis for determining that the open space requirement has been met. Chairman Hersh suggeSted that the words "Planning Commission" be inserted in place of "Advisory Agency" wherever it appears in the document. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the words "Advisory Agency" are used repeatedly throughout Title 16 and was concerned about changing it within this document only.. Ms. Marino said Title 16 outlines in its definition "adviSory agency" and defines who the advisory agency is in a given situation. Commissioner Dhanens felt in light of this it should remain as is to avoid confusion. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to adopt resolution making findings and amending Title 16 (Subdivisions) Section 16.28.170 0.3. of the. Bakersfield Municipal Code as referenced in the staff report and recommend same to City Council (see Exhibit 1). Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Delgado, Hersh NOES: Commissioners Ortiz, Tavorn ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 8. Page 8 AMEND_MENT T~) CI'-EY CEQA IMPJ_Ek, LEN~ATIO~ PRO_CED3J~ TO ALLO3/V FORJ~,NOP~LLQJ~IALi~EOJJ~EQ~ P~FP) PROC_ESS_AS PART_OF CON~O~.,ES~. AND TO ]'_HEI~~~_LE_ NATI N G~J~IE P U B_LIC..~N O ~ IP, E_C~QF/ A~EC/SIOJA--MAKER FOR A NEGA.TIV~_DECLARATION PERTAINING TO_PARC_EL MAP ~A/ALVE~S Staff report recommending.approval was given. COmmissioner Dhanens asked for clarification. Mr. Grady indicated by using the proposed language it would be up to the discretion of the Planning Director to choose a consultant as an alternative to sending a Request for Proposals. Chairman Hersh asked if staff has a prepared list of contractors. Mr. Grady said staff keeps a list of consultants who meet qualifications to perform certain environmental analysis for the city. Chairman Hersh asked if a minimum number are sent for each proposal. Mr. Grady said there is no set minimum number. Chairman Hersh asked when bids are returned if this information is stored for a given period of time. Mr. Grady said it is and there are rules which govern the keeping of these records. Concerning the word "may" contained in Exhibit A-1 Chairman' Hersh said he was. not in favor of it and felt it should be "shall" and that there should be a set number of individuals solicited from a set list that is available to the public. He was concerned that one firm may be solicited repeatedly and receive a contract repeatedly. He also stated he would like to see the documentation maintained for a couple of years. Commissioner Brady stated he was unclear on Chairman Hersh's reasoning for his suggestions because as he understood the Planning Director does not have to use the services of a private consultant. It was also his understanding the reason for this change is that under certain circumstances it was felt if he chose to use a Private consultant he could use the proposed process to obtain these services more quickly in the event of time constraints. Commissioner Dhanens felt if it were spelled out that the Planning Director select a. consultant on a rotating basis it may alleviate the concerns of Chairman Hersh'. Chairman Hersh recognized Ms. Kleiss. She submitted material to the Commission which she explained to the Commission. She stated she was officially asking for copies of letters of bids which went out to consultants for the EIR on the Marketplace. She cited the time frame of 35 days for completion of the EIR on the Marketplace asking why the process needs t° be accelerated. She requested that records be kept and bids be solicited. She suggested an official bid list be established and approved by the Commission. She encouraged that local business be used. Minutes, PC, i1/21/96 Page 9 Commissioner Dhanens stated for Ms. Kleiss that what is before the Commission is a Change to the process that the city uses to contract for a consultant not the amount of time the consultant uses in the preparation of an EIR. He commented on the qualifications of a consultant, stating he' assumed that the list the city has is a list of those contractors who are alreadY qualified. He asked what factors are used by staff in selecting a consultant if it is not based on price. Mr. Grady said when proposals are' submitted to the city staff looks at their recent experience with projects similar to the project at hand, Who their subconsuitants are, performance on previous EIR'.s and ability to deliver products on time: He explained that this is a field in which there are a limited number of indMduals and over a period of time their work becomes known to staff. Considering the time it takes to complete an EIR, staff could not contract with one . consultant to complete several EIR's. CommiSsioner Dhanens asked if quality of EIR's by a particular-consultant on a particular project is demonstrably different from another in terms of type'of information and analysis. Mr. Grady said the content is similar where they vary is on presentation of the material with respect to it being user friendly. Chairman Hersh disagreed with Mr. Grady's analysis of the difference in information from one consultant to another, stating he felt there is a difference. He stated his objection because if the RFP procedure is not required staff may get to the point that they would know the characteristics of certain consultants, what they put forth and what the city is looking for which creates a biased opinion. In response to Chairman Hersh's comments, Ms. Marino said the Planning Director chooses a consultant-from'the RFP process. Commissioner Brady felt discretion is not being changed. He asked how consultants are.chosen to receive request for proposals. Ms. Marino said a request for qualifications is sent out'and consultants~are placed on a list. Commissioner Brady said ;he did not see any cl3ange except the convenience when circumstances require time,saving efforts. He stated he would support this change. Mr. LaRochelle stated the Public.Works Department has a list of qualified firms and the city may solicit a bid without going through a formal RFQ process. Chairman Hersh asked how this proposed change would affect CEQA with respect to scheduling and timing. Ms. Marino stated it would not. Commissioner Brady felt that the Marketplace should not be used as an example for .EIR's. Minutes, PC, 1/21/96 Page 10 Commissioner Boyle asked about the process a consultant would go through to be placed, on.the Consultant list. Mr. Grady said a consultant file is kept, however depending on the project staff selects the individuals that RFP's would be Sent to baSed on what was submitted in their resumes. It is not automatic that if a resume is sent in they will be placed on a lengthy' bid list. 'Commissioner Boyle said he had no.problem with the concept of'the ordinance that in unique and emergency situations the Planning Director would be able to choose someone from an approved list. He was concerned that this not become the standard procedure, asking staff for language that would ensure this is the exception and not the rule. Commissioner Brady felt the Planning Director is going to choose consultants that he feels will do the best job for the city: .The ordinance is not being changed in this respect; .what is being allQwed is that the Planning Director, under certain circumstances, is able 'to use a process that is shorter and less formal. He stated he would not be opposed to language that would outline the preferred method and emergency method. Gommissior~er Delgado asked if staff could take some past experiences with the EIR process and plot them out so that the commission can see what the time limitations have been. Mr. Grady stated this could be done provided a Copy 0f what was submitted by Ms. Kleiss is given to staff. Commissioner Delgado was in agreement that language be added so that this does not become the normal process. Commissioner Dhanens was concerned that the same' c°nsultant not be chosen and that by-passing the RFP process does-not become the norm. He stated conceptually he does not have a problem with the proposed language of the ordinance. Commissioner Ortiz agreed that if language were added so that this does not become · the standard process he would be in favor of the change to the ordinance. Commissiener Boyle proposed that the word "should" replace the words ."shall" or "may". in item #B. 1. for selection of consultant with the balance of that sentence remaining as written. He recommended the last Sentence be amended to read as follows: "Distribution of an RFp as part of the consultant selection process may be dispensed with if and Only if the Planning Director determines that time and financial constraints · require otherwise." Ms. Marino gave another reason for the Planning Director to have this discretion saying there are times when there is only one consultant with expertise .in a certain field andit is known that this isthe cOnsultant who is most likely t° be awarded the contract. If an RFP is sent out other consultants are required to perform a great ' deal of work sending in a proposal knowing they will not be chosen. Commissioner Tavorn was concerned about perception. Minutes. PC 11/2.1/96 Page 11 Mr. Grady commented on a previous suggestion by a Commissioner that.this ~ssue be sent to Committee.stating he felt there is some merit in'this because he felt the Commission is-n°t unders!anding what is involved in the preparation of an E. IR with respect to the consultant. He stated there aPpears to be misunderstanding that there is public involvement in 'the selection of a consultant and .determination of who.is on the bid liSt. Which there is not. He stated the public's involvement occurs at the time of completion of the document and is limited to review of it. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution approving the proposed amendment to the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures to allow for an optional Request for Proposals (RFP) process as part of'consultant selection process, and to amend Table 1 therein to delete portion designating the Public Works Director as decision-maker for a Negative Declaration pertaining to Parcel Map Waivers, subject to the additional modification to -Exhibit "A-l," Paragraph B.1. to read as follows: The Planning Director should send out a Request for ProPosals (RFP) to those firms listed-as qualified to perform the work, and to any firm that specifically requests the RFP. Distribution of an RFP as part of the consultant selection process may be dispensed with if and only if the Planning Director determines .that time, financial constraints or other unique circumstances require otherwise. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: -Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Ortiz, Tavorn, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None 9.1) · ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac GENERA L J~J.AI'J_~ N C YJ~I~2~3~Y- ACATI O N_QE_S U P EB_SE DE D POFLTJ~S OJE~,QAD~&GJ~_T-OF-WAY AT THE_NO~RI~EFLQE OALL(~VAY~2BJ~LE~J[:~_ BJ~I M HALLJ3DA D. Approved as consent agenda item. 9.2) GEbi~I~SJS_TLENCY FI. NDING - VACATION OE_T_EIE~_UTUIgEJM. LE~ EAS_EM EJATJgEEL~ YY_D Approved as consent agenda item. Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 Page 12 9.3) C_~~I~IG - TLRA~R OF A poRTION OF CITY- 035/~~ PRQP_ERT_"( TO~'JflE3JJ~iLT_ED STATES DEPARTMEN~ BUREAU OF RF_CJ.AMATI_ON FOR ACCES~J~JA~ -~L~I~EI::?,N ApproVed as consent agenda item. 10. DISCUSSION, F~EVJE~A/AND POSSIBLE_ACTI_ON REGARDinG PUBL[GJAOTIC_E L~_S FO~NING.~_O~I.ING AtgDJ} S *5-minute break was taken at this tirhe. Mr. Grady stated at the request of the commission this item was placed on the agenda and a matrix outlining noticing requirements for public hearing items and the noticing for non-hearing items was submitted to the Commission. Commissioner 'Boyle asked Why wall and landscape plans have no noticing requirements. Mr. Grady said the commission adopted a resolution that provided the requirements that the applicant would be required to meet. If those requirements are met a wall and landscape plan is not required to be submitted to the commission, however if those requirements are to be deviated from it would be necessary to come · before the commission. If it comes before the commission surrounding neighbors are not noticed. At the request, of Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady explained determination of adequate access. 'Commissioner Boyle asked why no notice is given on development. agreements.- Because of the number of property owners involved an advertisement would be published in the newspaper. Regarding site plan review appeals, Commissioner Boyle .asked why notice would not be given to property owners within 300 feet. Mr. Grady stated generally an appeal would be to a condition of the site plan review and would only affect the property or the appeal may be with regard to a non- substantive administrative item. Commissioner Boyle was concerned about adding notice locations stating if one is inadvertently missed the hearing cannot be held. He asked if the city has looked into the cost of printing agendas in the newspaper. Mr. Grady said this has nOt been done, however he is aware of a survey being conducted on how staff may utilize the Internet. Perhaps this is an item which may be put on the internet. Commissioner Boyle encouraged the city to proceed with this. Commissioner Brady concurred with this idea. Commissioner Dhanens asked about the previous item if the action that was taken would make the commission the advisory agency concerning parcel map waivers or on negative declarations, Mr. Grady said it would be for the negative declaration only. Commissioner Dhanens felt the idea.of publishing the agenda in the newspaper is a very good idea' and asked that the city pursue this. Minutes, PC, 11/21/96 Page 13 Motion Was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady to direct staff to bring a report back to the Commission concerning (1) the cost to either publish agendas in the newspaper or (2) what th® cost and timing would be for the city to develop its own home page where agendas could be published. Motion carried. 11. C_OM M_UNICAZI_QI~S A) ~'j~en None B) ~/erbal None 121 _C~MMI S S I QI~C, DM MEI~TLS Commissio,ner Tavorn asked regarding Bernard Street and Mt. Vernon if the city and county have an agreement on expenditures with respect to traffic signal costs. Mr. LaRochelle said with respect to the operations and maintenance there is an agreement. He also explained the improvement agreement. Commissioner Hersh asked that in the future on motions which are made to add future agenda items that the record be prepared verbatim. Chairman Hersh cited a copy of a site plan review memo. A. C~(~mmittees. 13. DIS_CUSSt~ ANDACTIC)J~LBEGABDINGPOSSJBLECAI~JCELLA_T_LOJ~LOF T_~~I BBE:ME- ~. Mr. Grady gave information concerning the items on the next agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Brady to cancel the next pre-meeting. Motion carried. 14. ADJ_QU~NMEbLT Therebeing no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director~. '