Redding Planning Commissioner Aaron Hatch will Maintain His Seat

5.9.2024 12:46 pm: We have updated the article to correct a historical reference to someone’s service on the Planning Commission.

Aaron Hatch is a financial adviser, Shasta Land Trust board member and Redding Planning Commissioner. Last night, the public learned he’s also been the most deeply engaged Planning Commissioner during a fourteen-month update to the city’s General Plan, offering at least a hundred substantial comments to improve the document before its final approval by the Council in April. 

Over hours of public feedback offered to the Redding City Council last night, May 7, twenty-six diverse voices supported Hatch’s place on the Redding Planning Commission. The only one who criticized Hatch during the meeting was Redding Mayor Tenessa Audette, who had pushed for his removal and said she still believed Hatch should face consequences for his words at a recent Planning Commission meeting. None of her fellow Council members concurred.

Audette is concerned about Hatch’s brief comments at the very end of the Planning Commission’s April 9 meeting, when he said the advice he and other Commissioners were given by City Attorney Christian Curtis not to speak at the City Council’s meeting on the General Plan update to “avoid legal risk” seemed “non-standard” and felt like an attempt to “design the outcome” of the Council’s vote. Hatch and other Commissioners had the same right to speak at the meeting as any other member of the public, First Amendment Attorney David Loy told Shasta Scout last week.

During public comment last night, Hatch said his words on April 9 were not meant to accuse staff, only to bring to light his concerns about the legal advice and its effect on the public’s business. 

His fellow Commissioner, Brandi Greene, an environmental scientist and business owner, backed Hatch’s intent during her speech to the Council last night. Calling him “the most well-researched Commissioner on the dias”, Greene said the understanding of legislation and planning he brings is an asset to the city. And she thanked him for risking his reputation to speak up on behalf of all commissioners.

“The last thing that I want to say, Aaron, is thank you for risking,” Green paused, appearing to hold back tears. “For risking your reputation, for risking your business, to say what the rest of us (commissioners) were scared to say. To ask why we were told not to speak publicly. Thank you.”

Greene, along with Hatch was one of three Commissioners who voted against supporting an update to the General Plan earlier this year. She’s the only one not to have faced consequences from Audette related to her vote. The third to vote against the General Plan update, Cameron Middleton, was replaced last month, at Audette’s request, shortly after his vote. While a fourth Planning Commissioner who recused himself from that vote, Marcus Partin, was also replaced last month. Partin had served only a partial term and had just returned from a Planning Commission training when he was replaced. 

Community member Dana Silberstein told the public last night that she was the very first woman to sit on the Shasta Planning Commission forty-five years ago. She said diversity on the Commission now is just as important as it was then, mentioning her concern that the Council had already replaced two Commissioners within the last month, both at Audette’s behest, and might now remove Hatch.

“If this were only about Aaron (Hatch) that would be one discussion,” Silberstein said. “But you’ve already bounced two others. You’re at three now. I’m saying to you . . .  be aware of what this looks like from the outside . . . You’re beginning to look like you’re silencing voices, you’re silencing opposition.”

At the last Council meeting, Audette addressed the reasons for the removal of some commissioners directly, saying she believed they should have supported the General Plan and should generally “support the Council’s wishes” and be “pro-Redding” which she said, means being “pro-development.”

Last night Community member Kallie Markle shared a different perspective.

“Audette wants the Planning Commission to approve the General Plan,” Markle said. “But (when they voted) the Planning Commission understood that what benefits the members of the 2024 Redding City Council doesn’t always benefit the 90,000 plus citizens of Redding or serve the (city for the) next 30 years.”

“Three of the Planning Commissioners,” Markle continued, “representing half of its voting body, couldn’t approve it in good faith. And acting on their research and expertise they didn’t approve it for various reasons.” 

Hatch’s reasons for not supporting the General Plan centered on the decision to use “weak” language that is more guiding than directive in nature, a choice which gives the city more leeway for development in future and which the city attorney has said reduces its legal risk.

During initial comments at last night’s meeting Audette seemed to be saying that Hatch had taken an unreasonable amount of staff time with his comments and questions as a Planning Commissioner during the fourteen-month development of the Plan. But some in the audience, including Winnemem Wintu Chief Caleen Sisk, disagreed.

Sisk said that Hatch “holds the confidence of the Tribe.” 

“We believe that he should be asking the questions,” Sisk said. “He should be . . . making sure our concerns are represented to the fullest extent.” 

The Winnemem Wintu Tribe will be significantly affected by development at the Redding Riverfront. Development of that public land is something Audette has pushed for in contrast to Hatch and former Commissioners Middleton and Partin who have all expressed concerns.

After more than an hour of public comment, Vice Mayor Julie Winter, who supported the removal of Hatch at the last Council meeting, told the public she had changed her mind. She said she had made her previous statements out of concern for city staff.

Council member Jack Munns agreed, saying his interviews with a number of city staffers and commissioners had made it clear to him that Hatch did not deserve to be removed. 

Council members Mark Mezzano and Michal Dacquisto both also supported Hatch’s retention and suggested he should run for City Council, drawing applause from the audience.

Audette’s mind remained unchanged. She ended the discussion with a repeat of her earlier comments saying she felt Hatch should be held responsible for his actions. In their closing comments both she and Winter characterized Hatch as having made his statements because the vote on the General Plan update didn’t go his way.

“I don’t know any other way to admonish but I would appreciate (your) looking for teachable moments as opposed to accusing staff when when something doesn’t go your way,” Audette said.

Her statement was met by murmurs of disapproval from the crowd.

But Audette’s closing words to Hatch also acknowledged his unmistakably strong support.

“You better get a logo for city council ready,” Audette said.

 Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org