Hi Carey. You have been exemplary in making use of this blog in order to explain some decisions and topics under discussion by the 29 Palms Planning Commission.Consequently, I ask if you will explain the Commission’s rationale for what occurred last night concerning the new law embodied in Assembly Bill 1616.
This bill is a new state law that encourages and makes it easier for home-based food businesses. This morning, local radio news reported the Planning Commission last night set about to modify (my term) the new law with many restrictions. It reported:
“The Commissioners were uniformly dismayed by the law, and set about considering a long list of restrictions that the state might allow…”
“–20 devised by Development Director Charles LeClaire and another 10 from Commission Chairman Cary Alderson–and approved most of them.”
The intent of the law is to promotes local jobs, provide more healthy food choices and to boost local economies. Hence, why are they so many (30) add-on restrictions by the Commission (which are apparently not required under Assembly Bill 1616)?
On another issue, why is the planned barber shop made to re-apply for a permit because it had an enclosed area without asking for permission (107.7 FM)? Why is this important? I though the Planning Commission is trying to easy up on restriction and hoop jumping.
Often, you are often the voice of reason and many of us want to hear the Commission’s take on issues.
Thank in advance for your input.
You might be interested
Incoming search terms:
- commissioner 29 palms
- pamela carmichael palm desert