Former Commissioner’s Views on Growth Proposal Curious
Editor,
It was with regret and curiosity that I read Mike Smith’s letter to editor regarding the discussion at the Board of Supervisors meeting on County Code Chapter 30.
Mr. Smith’s letter has two things absolutely right: There is hyperbole involved, but I would offer he brought it forward, not the residents who offered public comment. And the letter is accurate in stating that this matter had been discussed at the Planning Commission, but let’s be clear about the forum for that discussion.
First of all, PRGI stands for “Potential Residential Growth Increase” – not “Planned Residential Growth Initiative.” As a former Planning Commissioner, Mr. Smith should have known better. Nevertheless, a review of the Planning Commission minutes for the past two years reveals the following:
On April 19, 2006, the Planning Commission heard an overview of the existing ordinance and commissioners commented for board consideration. The following month, May 3, 2006, the subcommittee to study this issue was formed by the Board of Supervisors, and it was reported that commissioners DeVries and Tognazzini were appointed to serve on this subcommittee and the commission was to receive monthly reports.
The PRGI item does not show up on the Planning Commission agenda for one full year after that time and is listed as an update in both May and June of this year. Update meaning this is what the board subcommitee is thinking about the ordinance. Not exactly an open forum for public discussion. The board subcommittee exercised its legitimate right to hold these meetings outside of the public view. Therefore, it would be hard for most people (with the apparent exception of the letter signer Mr. Smith) to believe that closed meetings were an opportunity for public comment. The first opportunity came with a stealth notice on the board agenda – introduction of amendments to County Code Chapter 30 – no mention of what Chapter 30 was, and, more important, this was brought forward as a done deal. There had been no opportunity for public review or interaction.
The July 24 meeting was the first time there was an opportunity to interact with the board on this matter. For the record, we totally appreciate the board’s willingness to continue the matter and discuss it further so that interested members of the public can offer whatever comment they deem appropriate, even you Mr. Smith.
And by the way, Mr. Smith, any Measure G supporter I know got over it years ago. Isn’t it time you did, too? In addition, as for the out-of-county attorney comment: Do you intend to fire the county counsel and all of the other attorney’s the board has hired since 2005? After all, they are all from out of the county. Be careful what you wish for.
Marian Cruz, Hollister
