Additional Matters of Interest

Recommendations 8

• R1

  Page 29
  Finding: The members of the Planning Commission are not offered the opportunity for formal training for their responsibilities. On-the-job training by interaction with the Community Development Services Department4 or by learning from the recommendations of the Community Development Services Department is limited. Humboldt County Planning Commission: This is a committee of seven citizens who have been appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to serve as the County’s planning agency with a mandate to render decisions on most matters related to planning and development. Humboldt County Community Development Services Department: When the 2011/2012 Grand Jury originally wrote this report, a large department called the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department contained the County Planning Department and several other county departments. Since that time, the Board of Supervisors dismantled the Community Services Department, separating its various functions. At the time that this update was written (March 2013), the County Planning & Building Department bears primary responsibility for the application of law and policy relevant to land use and development. It serves as technical advisor to both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The County Planning & Building Department, which is staff, should not be confused with the County Planning Commission, which is appointed directly by the Board of Supervisors, and has the power to make decisions.
• R2

  Page 30
  Finding: The Planning Commission has no independent staff to support them. The Planning Commission relies on the Community Development Service Department for support, knowledge, evaluations and background services to be able to come to their decisions. Recommendation: Provide support staffing to the Planning Commission for validating
• R3

  Page 31
  Finding: Thorough review of the materials provided to the Planning Commission by the Community Development Services Department can be compromised by the limited time available for the evaluation of that material. Recommendation: Provide sufficient time to the Planning Commission for evaluating materials provided by the Community Development Services Department. Involving Planning Commissioners with expertise in a particular topic addressed within a given Community Development Services Department staff report during the development of that report could facilitate analysis and shorten evaluation time. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will be implemented where warranted. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the Planning Commissioners should have sufficient time to review materials. However, staff cannot, by law, prevent applicants, opponents or third parties from giving the Planning Commission information of whatever length at the last minute.
• R4

  Page 32
  Finding: The presentations to the Board of Supervisors of the Planning Commission decisions are not made by members of the Planning Commission but by members of the Community Development Services Department. Thus, questions from the Board of Supervisors are answered by Community Development Services Department, not the Planning Commission which performed the analysis of the materials presented. Some recommendations in the presentations by members of the Community Development Services Department have differed from those of the Planning Commission. Without direct input from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission can be overruled or sidelined by the Community Development Services Department. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should present their decisions upon appeal, or factual findings upon request directly to the Board of Supervisors, and to be available to support their reasoning. Recommendations which differ from those of the Planning Commission should be independently presented to the Board of Supervisors. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will be implemented where warranted. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the Planning Commission may choose to communicate directly with the Board of Supervisors in an open meeting. However, this is not necessary as the Planning Commission’s decisions and the reasons supporting their decisions are captured by a resolution, findings, and/or the minutes. These documents are conveyed to the Board of Supervisors. 2012/2013 Grand Jury’s comment on this response: This response appears to address the recommendation as written.
• R5

  Page 33
  Finding: Up until recently, the infrequency of the meetings of the Planning Commission appears to have resulted in lengthy delays of the update, review and publication of the General Plan. Recommendation: Increase the frequency of the Planning Commission’s meetings. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will be implemented as warranted. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the frequency of Planning Commission meetings should increase dependent upon community and project needs. However, to increase the meetings arbitrarily would place an undue burden on the volunteer Planning Commissioners. 2012/2013 Grand Jury’s comment on this response: This response appears to address the recommendation as written.
• R6

  Page 33
  Finding: Public input to the Planning Commission by citizens wishing to present material pertaining to their requests, appeals, or complaints is limited to 3 minutes and restricted as to the location as to where they may address the Planning Commission. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors should instruct the Planning Commission to request estimates of required time from citizens appearing before the Planning Commission before their appearance and schedule those citizens accordingly. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted. The Board of Supervisors agrees that the Planning Commission should request the number of speakers per meeting and proceed with their agenda accordingly. However, it would not be good practice to allow some speakers more time than others. Giving all speakers an equal amount of time promotes ethical and equitable practices and also gives everyone an opportunity to express their opinions. 2012/2013 Grand Jury’s comment on this response: This response appears to address the recommendation as written.
• R7

  Page 34
  Finding: There are no term limits in place for Planning Commission members thus restricting the influx of fresh thinking and new ideas. Recommendation: Establish a limit of two consecutive 4-year terms to assure a periodic turn over in the Planning Commission’s make-up. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded as follows: This recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this recommendation as acquiring a set of skills related to land use matters can take some time and it would therefore be ineffective to limit the term of a Planning Commissioner. In addition, Planning Commissioners serve on an at will basis, meaning the Board of Supervisors can either fill or vacate their Planning Commission member at any given time. 2012/2013 Grand Jury’s comment on this response: This response appears to address the recommendation as written.
• R8

  Page 44
  Finding: The Planning Division never constructively informed the applicant in the case examined of the length of time required to complete the transaction, neither at the time of initial consultation nor subsequently. Recommendation: Applicants should be afforded an estimate of the time required to process their applications concurrent with the cost estimates already provided at the time of initial consultation. The Planning Division should then either complete the transaction within the estimated time period or, if unable to do so, transmit in writing an explanation for the delay to the applicant and enter a copy into the case file. The written notification would identify the reason for delay whether attributable to the applicant, County offices, or other parties. The notification would supplant the original completion time estimate with another date. If that ensuing date is not met, then the process would repeat. The use of this suggested system might allay future allegations of purposeful delay by establishing a clear and coherent record.