📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
The SAN Luis Obispo County Planning Commission
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Page 65
Although each Planning Commission member is appointed by, and serves the Board of Supervisors as a whole, each individual Commissioner is, presumably, most aware of and most closely involved in, issues regarding the district represented by the Supervisor who nominated the individual member. Therefore, that member is the person most likely to be representative of the consensus of the majority of their district.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 66
The Board of Supervisors should require that the Planning Commission make every reasonable effort to consider the opinion of the Commissioner in whose district a project is located when deciding an issue regarding that project in that Commissioner's absence. (Finding 1)
F2
Page 65
Under the present five-member structure of the Planning Commission it is possible, when only three Commissioners are present at a meeting, for two Commissioners to rule by simple majority vote in a manner contrary to the will of the majority of Commissioners were all five Commissioners present. This creates the opportunity for personal agenda to rule where fairness might otherwise dictate a different outcome. Pg 63 of 252
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 66
The Board of Supervisors should increase membership on the Planning Commission to seven members from the current five members. The two additional members should be appointed at large from the county. A unanimous vote of the entire Board of Supervisors should be required for each at large appointee. A quorum of the Planning Commission shall then be not less than four members. Binding votes of the Planning Commission must be by a majority of eligible voting members. (Finding 2)
F3
Page 66
An applicant for a discretionary permit has a reasonable expectation (albeit not a guarantee) that the requested permit shall be granted when all the County's published and stated requirements for that permit have been fulfilled and the Planning Department staff has recommended that the permit be issued.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 66
The Board of Supervisors should implement the following rules regarding Planning Commission decisions: In a case where the Planning Commission votes to deny issuance of a discretionary permit and the applicant has met each of the following three conditions: ¬ The applicant has met each of the requirements and conditions of the County as set forth by the Planning Department staff for issuance of the permit(s) during the review process and, Pg 64 of 252 ¬ The applicant has complied with all published rules, regulations, and ordinances required for issuance of the permit(s) and, ¬ The County Planning Department staff has recommended that the permit(s) be granted. If the applicant then appeals the denial to the Board of Supervisors, the current rules should be changed to reflect the following conditions: ¬ No charge shall be levied for the applicant's appeal. ¬ The Director of the Planning Department as an “interested person adversely affected,” (as defined in section 66452.5, subdivision (d) of the California Government Code) may file the appeal with the Board of Supervisors to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. (See also Attorney General's Opinion No. 88-803 – December 1, 1998). ¬ The Planning Department shall not be required to prepare new findings to support the Commission's position in denying the application and the Board of Supervisors shall review the decision based on the original findings and the stated reasons for denial by the Commission. These rules should have effect only where the above three conditions has been met. To be binding the vote of the Board of Supervisors must be by a majority of eligible voting members. (Finding 3)
F4
Page 66
Conflicts of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict, can arise when Commissioners are asked to decide issues where the best interest of the County, and its citizens, may conflict with the interest, intent, or desires of a Commissioner's employer. This is especially true where the Commissioner's employer can exercise regulatory authority in the County over issues coming before the county’s Planning Commission.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
Page 67
To avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, and to assure the Commission puts the interest of the citizens of San Luis Obispo County first, the Board of Supervisors should implement the following rule: When a Commissioner is confronted with an issue before the Planning Commission which same issue is subject to authority, or other direct interest of the Commissioner's employer, or in which that Commissioner could otherwise have a personal interest, that Commissioner must refrain from participating in the discussions and deliberations concerning that issue and must not cast a vote on any question concerning that issue. Nor should Recommendation #1 above be operative in this instance. (Finding 4)
R5
Page 67
The Board of Supervisors should implement the following rule regarding Planning Commission members: Pg 65 of 252 Each Commissioner should be required to sign a “Conflict of Interest Statement” which would operate to prevent conflicts of interest of an economic nature, conflicts resulting from incompatible offices, or the appearance thereof. The Statement should reference the FPPC Form 700 disclosure of economic interests of the Commissioner and should state who the Commissioner's employer is as well as any other economic interests relevant to a potential conflict. This Statement should be in addition to the requirements for filing of the Form 700. The Commissioner should agree in the Statement to refrain from participating in any issue before the Commission in which either they or their employer has an interest. Violation of the terms of the Statement should be grounds for immediate discharge from the Planning Commission. (See Appendix 'A' for a discussion and reference to the California Government Code regarding this Recommendation.) (Finding 4)