PC 071107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox noted that a Consent Calendar had complicated matters and added that Commissioners had been able to communicate with staff regarding reordering items. Now, Commissioners were asked to request those changes at the meeting, such as when an applicant pulled their own items. If there was an opportunity to streamline an agenda, any Commissioner may request a change, and each agenda could be fluid depending on the situation. Ms. Harryman cautioned against debating the merits of the item. Commissioner Blank noted that when the City Council committed to taking action but chose not to, the action the City Council could have taken may have ranged anywhere from removal to something else. He had watched the video online, and it did not appear to him that during the second meeting, the City Council would take any action other than referring the item to the City Manager and asking for his opinion and draft procedures. From a process perspective, he commented that some Commissions have a very ambitious and active Chairman process. He noted that this Commission has taken the approach to not do that and that the Chairmanship was rotated as a method of staying apolitical. He noted that agendizing this item would be reflective of a possible change in the way the Commission was operated and that the Chairmanship may become more political. He observed that the Commission may wish to consider taking action where the City Council did not. He noted that one possibility was to table this motion as described in the Commissioner’s Handbook, which would not nullify or remove the motion, until a majority of the Planning Commission pulls it off the table. Commissioner Blank noted that the question could be called, resulting in the motion passing to agendize the item, or it would fail and stop there. He believed the advantage of laying the motion on the table would prevent duplication of work by Commissioner Olson and may allow for some further individual discussion of Commissioners to gain a better understanding of the background. He noted that further guidance from the City Attorney’s office may be received regarding this item. Ms. Decker noted that a motion and second were on the floor and that a vote should be taken. She noted that her job as Secretary to the Planning Commission required her to aid the Commission in running the proceedings efficiently. She believed that tabling the motion would be disruptive to the cohesion of the Commission. She believed this discussion would be of interest to the general public after having been informed of its existence on the agenda. She noted that the vacancy previously left by Brian Arkin occurred six weeks before the scheduled elections. Commissioner Blank believed the disruption had already occurred and that the same debate may occur should the motion be made at the next meeting. He noted that tabling a motion was a yes/no action and cited the Commissioner’s Handbook excerpt that described it. He was very concerned that the full Commission should be able to weigh in on the issue and would like Commissioner Pearce to take part. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 2007 Page 25 of 27