WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
1 Jessika Vasquez
From: Lee Pasternak < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 1:07 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: SS A-1 Appt. of Planning Commissioners
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cauƟous when clicking links or opening aƩachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing aƩempts.
Good aŌernoon.
I object to the appointment of any planning commissioners today because the proper procedure, which would have afforded members of the community noƟce of the interviews, was not followed.
When the city was not going to be able to conƟnue to have these commission interviews behind closed doors, instead of discussing why and indicaƟng that they would now be public meeƟngs which would allow public comment, the city took the maƩer off the agenda to avoid leƫng people know how they could get noƟce. And this happened at both the last study session and the last council meeƟng.
How were people to know what the name of the interviewing body would be called or how they could request noƟce? Why weren’t the people who had shown an interest in the process given noƟce? It is preƩy clear that the city intenƟonally and shamefully pulled a fast one on the residents.
It is a new ballgame and a new procedure. You now want to appoint two planning commissioners, and the fact that the meeƟngs should now be opened to the public will affect the applicaƟon process and therefore the decision process, and the number of interested applicants.
Handle this maƩer ethically and fairly and re-open applicaƟons, make a public explanaƟon of the new process, and assure that the public will receive sufficient noƟce of commission interviews.
Lee G. Pasternak
Beverly Hills Resident of Many Years