Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Reconsideration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission procedural fight ends without reconsideration of Falcon Ridge vote
Summary
The commission considered a request to reconsider its March 23 action on a Falcon Ridge extension. Commissioners debated procedural rules about who may move for reconsideration and the required supermajority; the request ultimately failed to meet the required seven‑member supermajority and was not granted.
A procedural petition to reconsider the Planning Commission's March 23 decision on the Falcon Ridge extension occupied significant time on April 20.
Under the commission's rules of procedure a motion to accept a reconsideration request must be made by a member of the prevailing side and requires a two‑thirds (supermajority) vote. Staff counsel reminded the commission of the two‑step process: the commission first decides whether to accept the request for reconsideration; if accepted, a full hearing on the merits is scheduled.
Commissioners exchanged motions to deny and to accept the petition. The board took multiple voice and roll call votes; a roll call that recorded individual positions resulted in four members voting in favor of reconsideration and two opposed. County counsel reminded the commission that, per the rules, a supermajority of seven votes is required to grant reconsideration and the motion therefore did not carry.
Outcome: the request for reconsideration of the Falcon Ridge extension did not meet the procedural threshold and will not proceed to a hearing on the merits. Staff counsel advised that the rules require a supermajority to reopen a final action and the commission followed that rule.
Next steps: the original March 23 action remains the operative decision on Falcon Ridge unless the applicant pursues other authorized remedies.
