The Issue
September 23, 2002
Should the commission approve the *administrative order denying the proposed development in the Walnut Creek area because it does not meet *city codes?
- The language of the administrative order had been agreed upon after a lengthy quasi-judicial hearing at which substantial, competent information had established the proposed retention ponds do not meet city codes.
- The agenda indicated this meeting would have a formal signing of the administrative order *without any further discussion* and certainly not another quasi-judicial hearing.
- Citizens who had spent so much time, energy and money defending their property from flooding were not notified that there would be any discussion or additional vote.
- Two commissioners who had previously voted to deny the proposed development decided to reopen discussion.
Chart, page and contents were designed by Ellie Schwab
Walnut Creek Adm Order - Go to page 12
August 28 Meeting
Door
Top
|
The Vote
|
Commissioner |
Yes |
No |
 |
Mayor Bussing | X | |
 |
Braddy | | X |
 |
Chestnut | | X |
 |
Domenech | | X |
 |
Nielsen | | X |
---->Notice that two commissioners *rescinded* their vote of August 28 even though the proposed retention pond plan violates city codes!
The issue continues...
"Quis custodiet istos custodes"
Who watches the watchers?
|
|