San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building Victor Holanda, Aicp Director the Salvansming*

The failure to include the "Figure 4 map" and references to it in the staff report was at best inept staff performance or at worst deliberate deception. Response: The Planning and Building Department disagrees partially with the finding. Failure to include the Figure 4 of the South County Area Plan (Coastal) in the staff report was a mistake by staff. There was no effort to deceive the public or decision makers. The omission of the last sentence of Standard #9 (that goes with Figure 4) was also a mistake by staff, and was not intentional to deceive the public or decision makers. Whether a mistake made by staff is inept performance” is subjective and should not be part of “findings” from a Grand Jury unless“ is it supported by facts. No facts contained in the Grand Jury report that would lead to a determination that the staff member in this case was inept or was acting to deliberately deceive.

The staff report was a crucial element in an important decision by the Planning Commission and it was only public testimony at the Commission hearing that prevented a decision counter to approved land use policy. Response: The Planning and Building Department disagrees partially with the finding. A General Plan Conformity Report is required for proposed purchase, sale, or lease of land for public purposes (Government Code 65402), and therefore it is an important piece of information in the process. However, the conclusions of the General Plan Conformity Report do not control the decision to buy, sell, or lease land (i.e. decision makers can make purchase, sale, or lease findings contrary to the conclusions of a Conformity Report). Public review and testimony is critical to the planning process, and in this case, was vital in that it was responsible for catching mistakes in the staff report.

The staff report concluded that the sale of County land to State Parks was in compliance with County land use policy, a conclusion consistent with the report only because of the omission of the "Figure 4 map" and related text. Response: The Planning and Building Department disagrees partially with the finding. A finding of conformity or non-conformity is not necessarily determined by one policy or standard being in conflict with the proposed purchase, sale or lease. Staff reviewed approximately two dozen county policies and standards applicable to the proposed sale, and although the Figure 4 map and related text are important to the conformity analysis, their Response to Grand Jury July 9, 2009 absence in the report did not dictate the conclusions of the report. In the end, the Board of Supervisors determined that the sale of county land at Oceano Dunes was partially in conformance and partially not in conformance with the Local Coastal Plan. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Planning Commission should require relevant source documents accompany reports from the Planning and Building Department. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is already part of our standard procedure and practice.