|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Regular-General Government # 34.
|
| Board of Supervisors |
County Counsel |
|
|
|
| Subject |
| Receive staff report and provide general direction relating to potential changes to Planning Commissioner appointment provisions of the Yolo County Code. (No general fund impact) (Pogledich) |
| Recommended Action |
| Receive staff report and provide general direction relating to potential changes to Planning Commissioner appointment provisions of the Yolo County Code. |
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Operational Excellence
Sustainable Environment
Flourishing Agriculture |
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
On September 13, 2016, the Board of Supervisors requested that staff prepare options for revising Yolo County Code provisions regarding Planning Commission appointments. As staff understand it, two provisions of Yolo County Code Section 2-2.1602 (Attachment A) warrant consideration:
- Text regarding “at-large” Planning Commission appointments that, among other things, requires an at-large seat to be held open for residents of the unincorporated area for six-month after a vacancy arises; and
- Text that restricts appointments proposed by a Supervisor to residents of his/her individual district.
Each provision is considered in turn below. During consideration of this item, staff intend to seek Board input regarding options set forth below and, if appropriate, staff will return with an ordinance amending the County Code in November.
At-Large Commissioners
With regard to at-large Planning Commission appointments, the preference for unincorporated area residents mentioned above is also reinforced by other language in Section 2-2.1602. For instance, Section 2-2.1602 bars reappointment of an at-large commissioner residing within a city at time of initial appointment until an additional six-month recruiting process is completed at the end of the commissioner’s term. Also, Section 2-2.1602 authorizes that Board to terminate the membership of an at-large member who moves from the unincorporated area into a city during his or her term.
Staff are not aware of any compelling reason to retain these provisions of the Yolo County Code. These provisions do not ensure that Planning Commission membership will include representation from the agricultural community, as the at-large seats could be filled by residents of unincorporated towns or others lacking a role in agriculture. Some options for changing this approach include:
- Striking all language regarding the residency of at-large commissioners; or
- Striking all language regarding residency and including new language expressing a preference for at-large members with close familiarity with agricultural issues.
An advantages of the first option mentioned above are that it allows the Board to appoint the best candidate available for each Planning Commission seat that becomes vacant. It also allows (but does not require) the Board to evaluate the overall composition of the Planning Commission in making individual appointment decisions to ensure the Commission as a whole reflects urban, agricultural, and other perspectives that the Board believes should be represented. The second option tends to remove this flexibility in favor of language expressing a preference (or a requirement, if desired) for agricultural community representation. This may be desirable generally, but it is not necessary to ensure a balanced Commission because, among other things, district appointees may also have substantial agricultural backgrounds.
Cross-District Appointments
As noted, the County Code restricts district appointments to individuals that reside in a particular supervisorial district to ensure all five districts are represented. This approach does not necessarily ensure that the best qualified candidate is selected for a given vacancy, nor does it promote a diverse range of perspectives on the Planning Commission. Staff thus recommend that the Board consider at least two options for modifying language regarding district-specific appointments:
- Eliminate district-specific appointments, effectively turning all Planning Commission seats into at-large seats; or
- Retain district-specific appointments but authorize a supervisor to propose the appointment of someone outside of his or her district in the event of a vacancy.
Either option would create more flexibility and tend to ensure a highly-qualified Planning Commission that reflects a range of different perspectives.
As indicated above, staff will receive input from the Board on the at-large and cross-district appointment issues mentioned above and return with an ordinance for consideration in November. |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
| This item was coordinated with the Department of Community Services. |
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|