Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Commission Recruitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Ramon Council keeps planning commission recruitment closed, will interview nine current applicants
Summary
The City Council voted to proceed with interviews of nine already-submitted candidates to fill a planning commission vacancy rather than reopen the application period, citing timing concerns tied to upcoming land-use hearings.
The San Ramon City Council voted Jan. 28 to proceed with interviews of nine applicants already on file for a vacant seat on the Planning Commission and not to reopen the application period.
City Clerk Christina Franco told the council the city received nine applications during the regular recruitment window, which opened Dec. 12 and closed Jan. 5, to fill a vacancy created by a resignation on Dec. 10. "By the close of the application period, we did receive 9 applications," Franco said. The appointed commissioner will serve the remainder of the term, which expires in June 2027.
Council members debated whether to reopen the recruitment to allow candidates who recently applied for a District 2 council vacancy to apply for the commission seat. Proponents said reopening would be more inclusive; opponents said reopening could delay seating a fifth commissioner and complicate upcoming land-use votes. Mayor Armstrong warned of scheduling and voting consequences: "One of the things that's concerning me right now is that we don't have a fifth planning commissioner right now. And we are going through a lot of land use issues right now," he said, noting Measure G requirements for certain general plan amendments that can require supermajority votes.
Debbie, the city—s Community Development Director, told the council that joint Planning Commission–City Council sessions on a general plan amendment are scheduled for Feb. 11 and Feb. 25 and that a final commission vote was tentatively scheduled for March. She said the city could delay a commission vote to allow a newly appointed commissioner time to review materials, but noted it would be preferable to have the commission fully staffed sooner rather than later.
After discussion, Council member Veroz moved and Council member Rubio seconded a motion "to take the current applicants and not reopen the application period." The motion passed. The transcript records the motion's approval but does not provide a roll-call tally for that vote.
Council members directed staff to agendize the interview process and timing at an upcoming meeting so interviews can be scheduled and the council can select one candidate from the existing pool. Staff said the interview procedure and specific dates would be returned to council for direction and that, if the council later decided to reopen recruitment, staff would present options for an equitable and transparent process.
Why it matters: seating a fifth planning commissioner affects the commission—s ability to meet supermajority thresholds on Measure G-related general plan amendments and helps ensure a full complement of members for several major land-use items the city expects this year.
What the council decided: move forward with interviews of the nine applicants received during the Dec. 12—Jan. 5 filing period, schedule interviews per a future agenda item, and not reopen the application window at this time.
