Planning Commission interview process

The resident whose Brown Act complaint changed the process said the public still wasn't properly notified and asked the council to appoint nobody now and instead establish a new, transparent procedure.

Raised Brown Act concerns about the short-notice liaison meetings and urged disclosure of the developer applicant's partners, lenders, and properties.

Argued that normal liaison meeting notice is more than one day and questioned whether the 24-hour notice would survive litigation, and called for disclosure of the developer applicant's ties.

Called by phone, he said the special meeting wasn't recorded or broadcast and the 24-hour notice 'doesn't meet the spirit of the Brown Act,' urging the council to reject the recommendations and start anew.

Written comment objecting to any appointment Tuesday and asking for re-scheduled interviews with a minimum three-day notice, citing the Joiner case.

Written comment objecting to Tuesday's appointments and demanding a three-day minimum notice designed to ensure public participation.

Written comment asking the council to include residents in the process and objecting to the appointment recommendation.

Written comment questioning why the process was rushed and interviews held around the Jewish high holidays, and asking that appointment decisions be deferred.

Written comment supporting all commission interviews being held in a public forum, drawing on her own selection experience.

Written comment concerned appointments were being made behind closed doors and that private meetings with applicants may have occurred; registered an objection.

Written comment saying proper notice was not followed, calling the process a 'fast one' on residents, and urging the city to reopen applications.

Written comment objecting to any appointments Tuesday and citing the Joiner case in support of a three-day notice and rescheduling.