Council agrees to review planning-commission appointment rules after members raise legal and transparency concerns

City staff and council members debated the appointment process for advisory bodies, and the council agreed to have staff compare the city’s municipal code with the California Government Code and return with clarified language and proposed bylaw amendments.

At the meeting, city staff explained that the Planning Commission is established in the municipal code as a five-member body appointed by majority vote of the council for three-year terms. The code allows incumbents who want another term to submit a written request; past practice, however, has been inconsistent, staff said. “If a Planning Commissioner is interested in serving again, they prepare a written request to the City Council to be considered for an additional term,” staff said during the report.

Several council members said the ordinance language is ambiguous and that practice varied when a commissioner’s term expired. One council member asked staff to analyze whether past appointments complied with Government Code requirements and to bring back recommended ordinance changes. Another council member argued for opening every vacancy to public application to ensure broader community access and to avoid perceptions of favoritism; supporters of the existing practice said experience on the commission is valuable and that the council already has authority to approve or deny incumbents’ reappointment.

The council discussed a particular past appointment (an appointment following Commissioner Vasquez’s term) and asked staff to review that case as part of the legal comparison. Council members also asked that any proposed language harmonize appointments across advisory bodies (Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Committee) to improve clarity and administrative consistency.

City staff said the Planning Commission itself is preparing proposed bylaw revisions and that those recommendations will be forwarded to the council. The city attorney said she would review state housing and appointment law and noted upcoming training resources for elected and appointed officials.

By consensus, the council asked staff to: (1) analyze whether the municipal ordinance conflicts with state law and report back; (2) draft clarified ordinance language and bylaw updates reflecting the council’s direction (incumbent letter considered, council approval or denial, and if denied, open recruitment); and (3) incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommended bylaw changes for council consideration. The city will schedule any ordinance amendment for a future council meeting and public noticing.