Link

it is part of last night's agenda, last link under the pc item. at least i believe this is what is being referred too. not sure if i agree with the position, really don't think it is that big of a deal. i think it is more interesting to compare the experience of those being removed to those replacing them. all in the name of "streamlining".

Thanks for the link. I'm so glad our council selected such totally unqualified applicants for the Planning Commission. There wasn't even any discussion regarding this issue. Someone needs to forward this link to the reporter for the Press-Democrat so she can include it in her article on the new Planning Commissioners.

A discussion would make no difference when the council majority and the planning commission all operate under one mind - no new development. It is now a majority vs. a minority in council and planning commission decisions. I certainly hope there are no more hurdles with Regency now that they have the new planning commission...

tahoe, was that last statement sarcasm? regency will, without a doubt, face many, MANY more hurdles with the new planning commission.

Councilman Rabbit attempted to get an answer to a simple question at last night's meeting. Where is Regency in the process and when might it come to Council? Just asking the question angered Torliatt who talked over Rabbit. He never got an answer.

If a Councilman doesn't know where Regency is in the process and merely asking the question angers the Mayor (who grins at the camera and says, 'we are working to streamline this and bring it forward) how the he%l are their new and improved planning commissioners going to work out?

There was no sarcasm in my statement. I have to trust what the mayor said last evening...

"We have some opportunities for revenue generation that we are pursing in this city. What this council has done is set up a process particularly for some of these projects including the Regency project to actually get through the process". Then she went on to say, "Regency is probably coming back in December or January for consideration of final approval".

And if I'm wrong in trusting what the mayor said, she will be the first to hear about it.

The mayor was part of the council majority that stacked the planning commission with anti-big box activists. You are completely wrong in trusting the mayor. The process that has been set up is completely contrary to what a group of citizens, the Development Code Advisory Committee, spent almost two years developing in an effort to streamline development. That committee included council members, SPARC members and planning commissioners as well as staff who were familiar with the good and bad of how projects were considered in town. The council majority completely disregarded their recommendations, fired planning staff, eliminated SPARC and illegally fired sitting planning commissioners in order to further their no-growth political agenda. This whole thing stinks and hopefully, the voters will remember this debacle when they vote for county supervisor and in the next city council election.