San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
Subdivision Review Board or Planning Commmission: WHO Decides?*
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
There is inconsistency between and within planning department ordinances Titles 21, 22 and 23, regarding the types of applications to be heard by the planning commission or the subdivision review board. Title 21 is inconsistent with Titles 22 and 23, and there are 2 APCD Clean Air Plan, 2001, Chapter 6, L-1 ^{3} SRB meeting minutes 1/9/09 - 3/1/10 indicate 6 of 15 meetings where 1 or more members were absent inconsistent provisions within and between each of these two titles. Any changes to Title 23 must be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors direct the planning department in its next ordinance update to propose amendments to conflicting sections in the Consolidated Processing, Conditional Use Permits and Development Plan sections of Titles 22 and 23 and resolve inconsistencies between these titles and Title 21 as documented in this report. Any changes to Title 23 must be approved by the California Coastal Commission.(Finding 1)
F2
High level applications which can be significant, complex and controversial are often combined with a low level application and decided by the SRB, thereby avoiding hearing before the planning commission.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The Board of Supervisors direct the planning department to prepare amendments to appropriate sections of Titles 22 and 23 to provide hearing by the planning commission for consolidated projects, whether "required" or "not required". (Findings 2, 3)
R3
The Board of Supervisors grant discretion to the director of planning to elevate certain complex or controversial consolidated or high level project applications from the SRB to the planning commission. (Findings 2, 3)
F3
The planning director cannot elevate a project application from the subdivision review board to the planning commission.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Planning staff does not routinely use a written "checklist" to ensure ordinance and processing consistency and completeness of applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The planning department develop a checklist to ensure ordinance compliance, processing consistency and completeness of project applications. Planners should routinely use this checklist in processing applications. (Finding 4)
F5
The potential exists for decisions made by the SRB to be influenced by the planning department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
The Board of Supervisors direct the planning department to take appropriate action to ensure that planning department representatives on the SRB will not have any association with projects that will be heard by the SRB. (Findings 5, 6)
R7
The Board of Supervisors direct the planning department to prepare an amendment to Title 21 providing that for the SRB, a quorum of four is required and a majority of the quorum is required for any action. (Findings 5, 6)
F6
The Air Pollution Control District's representative on the SRB typically votes "no" on all development applications outside the designated urban reserve area.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Planning regulations are inordinately complicated, difficult, conflicting and almost impossible to understand by the public, and make uniform interpretation by staff difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Board of Supervisors direct the planning department in its next ordinance update to work on making make these documents easier to read and understand for both staff and the public. (Finding 7)
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.