Rivergrove Residents Saw This Coming. We Just Didn't Expect Them to Say It Out Loud.
For months, the City said the Planning Commission wasn't working because it didn’t have enough commissioners.
Then, at the August 14th City Council meeting, that explanation fell apart.
Chair Alan Stonewall told the Council he had four qualified residents ready to serve. Problem solved, right?
Apparently not.
Instead of moving to rebuild the Commission, Council members questioned Stonewall about the candidates, including where they lived. During public comment, resident Joan Joyce questioned the focus, noting that most of the previous commissioners lived on the same street. She asked if that’s why her own repeated offers to serve went nowhere. Councilor Leah Silber raised a similar concern.
But Councilor Doug McLean said the quiet part out loud: the volunteer shortage was never the real issue. The plan, he acknowledged, had always been for the Council to take over the Planning Commission's land-use responsibilities, with staff handling much of the work.
Why This Job Is Normally Kept Separate
Rivergrove’s land-use system separates two very different jobs. The City Council makes the rules. But deciding if one specific project follows those rules is supposed to be a separate process, more like a fair hearing than a political decision. Evidence is presented, both sides get heard. The decision goes on the record. The decision maker is supposed to be impartial.
That's what the Planning Commission is for. It keeps that second job separate from council members who campaign, take public stances, and answer to voters.
Fold that job into the City Council, and the same officials who approve a City project also decide whether it follows the rules. McLean's comment confirms that's the actual plan, not a side effect.
Why This Matters to You
If the Planning Commission goes away, the people who approve and fund a project also judge whether it's allowed. That's not a risk anymore. It's the goal.
It also means fewer independent eyes on anything built near you, and no separate board left to hear you out before a project moves forward.
A Pattern, Not a Coincidence
A Planning Commission down to one member. No real effort to fill the seats. Then, the moment the emergency solves itself, a scramble for a new reason to keep going.
If keeping the Planning Commission running was ever really the goal, seating the first four that volunteered should have ended this on August 14th. It didn't.
What You Can Do
You can also [email] the Mayor and City Council beforehand. Ask them directly:
If four qualified candidates are ready to serve, why is the City Council still working to repeal the ordinance and eliminate the Planning commission?
What really decides who gets nominated to the Planning Commission, where they live?
Is growing the City Council's own power over land-use decisions the real purpose here?
—
Footnotes:
(1) The Mayor repeatedly used the term “hearing” to describe the August 24th special meeting, although that word is not used in the meeting agenda posted on the city website. A hearing to consider a land development ordinance requires very specific city wide public notice, none of which has occurred.
(2) You can find the meeting agenda and Zoom info posted on the city website [here]. This page is usually modified several times before a meeting.