Omission of map with off-road restrictions in a report to the state is called ‘disturbing’
By Bob Cuddy | bcuddy@thetribunenews.com
The county’s handling of a report affecting the multi-million dollar sale of the Oceano Dunes is “disturbing” because it gave the erroneous impression that the sale allows off-road vehicles in an area where they are banned, the civil grand jury says.
The planning department’s omission of a key map — and references to it — in its report gave a false impression to the county Planning Commission and “was at best inept staff performance or at worst deliberate deception,” the grand jury wrote in one of several reports released toward the end of its term June 30.
The report dealt with the county’s possible sale of its 584 acres of the Oceano Dunes, known as the La Grande Tract, to the state, which operates the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreational Area.
The would-be sale is one of many factors that could decide whether off-roaders continue to use that section of the dunes, roughly one-third of the total.
The county says its planners merely made a mistake.
“There was no effort to deceive the public or decision makers,” Acting Planning Director Kami Griffin said in an e-mail that excerpted parts of the department’s response to the grand jury. “Whether a mistake made by staff is ‘inept performance’ is subjective and should not be part of ‘findings’ from a grand jury unless it is supported by facts,” the department’s response reads.
The department’s conclusions “do not control the decision to buy, sell or lease land,” it continued.
“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 department response says.
When the report came to the Planning Commission in 2006, county planners omitted what they dubbed the “Figure 4 map,” which designated a “vehicle free area” in a large portion of the land being offered for sale.
The ban on vehicles would have “conflict(ed) with the state parks’ intended use for the parcel,” the grand jury wrote.
In addition, the report omitted references to the map in other parts of the text.
The county found out about this only after a citizen, Larry Bross, called the report into question at the Planning Commission meeting. The Board of Supervisors later agreed with Bross.
Questioned about the changes in the staff report, an unnamed planner told the grand jury that it was “an accident, an oversight.”
Another said the county official with the greatest knowledge of the land’s complicated history had retired, and staffers newly assigned to the report “did not recognize the importance of the Figure 4 map.”
The grand jury was skeptical of that explanation, however, since text references to the Figure 4 map also had been removed.
The implications were significant, the grand jury wrote. “This report was designed to inform important environmental and financial decisions.”
“The appearance of changing approved policy documents to indicate the opposite of their intent is disturbing.
“Planning staff are not policy makers and misrepresenting approved policies cannot be tolerated.”
The grand jury recommended that the Planning Commission require source documents when it receives reports from the Planning Department, and if a report is changed, the department should justify the change.
The Planning Department must file a written response to the Superior Court by Aug. 17, and the Board of Supervisors must file its response by Sept. 16.
The 19-member civil grand jury, composed of citizen volunteers, investigates complaints about county government.
Its recommendations are not binding, but the departments it investigates must file a formal response with Superior Court.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/782653.html
No comments:
Post a Comment