Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 Workshop - Findings ITEM NO.4 Inter-Com DATE: APRIL 11, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION TO: FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: WORKSHOP - FINDINGS The Planning Commission requested that a series of workshops be conducted to understand better the fundamentals of planning, zoning, and development related laws. Consequently, staff felt that, since almost all Planning Commission actions involve findings, this topic would be appropriate. The following provides an overview of findings and the decision making process. Background land use decisions frequently are challenged in court. Accordingly, courts require an adequate "record" upon which to exercise judicial review. This means that the documentation supporting the approval or denial of a project must include an explanation of how the city agency (i.e., the Planning Commission and/or City Council) processed the evidence presented when reaching its decision. The courts want to see the relevant sub- conclusions that expose the City's methods of analyzing the facts and applying its ordinances and policies. Thus, it has long been the law that the City decision makers set forth in writing through a set of findings how they arrive at their land use decisions, especially when acting in a non-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. Purpose of Findings The California Supreme Court has laid down distinct, definitive principles of law detailing the need for findings when a public agency approves or disapproves a project when acting in a quasi-judicial, administrative role (Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Ca/. 3d 506 (1974)). The Topanga court outlined five (5) purposes for making findings; three (3) relate to the decision making process, two (2) relate to judicial functions as follows: . To provide a framework for making principled decisions, thereby enhancing the integrity of the administrative process. . To facilitate orderly analysis and reduce the likelihood the agency will leap randomly frpm evidence to conclusions. . To serve a public relations function by helping to persuade parties that administrative decision making is careful, reasoned, and equitable. Planning Commission Workshop Findings Page 2 . To enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek judicial review and remedies. . To apprise the reviewing court of the basis for the agency's decisions. What are findings? Findings are written explanations of why, legally and factually, the planning agency (i.e., the Planning Commission and/or City Council) made a particular decision. Findings are supposed to cover two important functions: . 1. the evidence on which the decision is based; and, 2. the connections between the evidence and the case at hand. Findings must be supported with evidence in the records which may consist of staff reports, written and oral testimony, the EIR, exhibits, etc. A set of findings is meant to be the rationale that a City Council and/or the Planning Commission used in making a decision. In the words of the landmark court case on the subject, findings "expose the agency's mode of analysis" and "bridge the analytical gap between raw data (evidence presented) and ultimate decision." When findings are reQuired With a few exceptions, cities don't need to identify findings for legislative actions such as zoning ordinances and general plan amendments because they are presumed to be policy statements. However, findings are always required for quasi-judicial decisions on individual permits so that it is clear how a city is applying its policy to a particular case. As mentioned above, State laws require certain findings to be made when planning agencies take actions such as a use permit, variance, subdivision map, etc. Regardless, even when findings are not required by law, it is often a good idea to develop findings. For whom do we write findings? Findings should be developed with at least five audiences in mind: . The public; . Interested parties; . The governing body; Planning Commission Workshop Findings Page 3 . Other governmental entities; and, . Courts. Questions Findings Should Answer Findings should answer the following questions, as relevant to a particular decision: 1. Why was the regulation adopted or rejected? 2. Why was the permit approved or denied? 3. How does the decision meet relevant statutory requirements? 4. What is the connection between the action and the benefits of the project? 5. What public policy interests are advanced by the decision? 6. What do particular provisions, restrictions, or conditions mean? In short, findings should discuss reasons why the city has decided to take a certain action. How findings are drafted and the four-step process in developing findings How findings are drafted will vary. The following four-step process may help in drafting effective and relevant findings: 1. State the impact (either positive or negative) of the project. 2. Cite the source of the supporting information (for example, the General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance, a study, soils or noise report, or other evidence). 3. Refer to the relevant governing statute, regulations, or ordinance. 4. Describe in detail why or how the project's impact either meets or fails to meet the requirements included in the statute, regulations, or ordinance. One of the simplest techniques to use in developing a finding is to use the word "because." It connects the reasoning to the legal principle. For example: . The project is inconsistent with Section 11/.0.1 of the First Street Specific Plan district regulations because the site is designated for commercial uses while the proposed machine shop, which may create objectionable noise, industrial waste, Planning Commission Workshop Findings Page 4 and dust, is considered an industrial use more appropriately located in the City's industrial zoned properties. . The project's traffic generation would not impact the City's street system because the analysis presented in the traffic study submitted for the project indicated that the additional traffic would be within the street capacity as designated by the Tustin Circulation Element of the General Plan. In a typical situation, a staff report includes a proposed set of findings that supports the staffs recommendation. However, in a public meeting and/or hearing additional facts, observations, testimony may be given and would need to be incorporated in the final findings. In this case, a new set of findings would be drafted and added to the final resolution. There are times also when the Commission may not adopt the recommended position, requiring the development of a new set of findings. In this case, typically the Commission would make a tentative decision at the meeting and explain its reasoning to staff. Staff would then draft the findings and return the item to the Planning Commission at the next meeting where a decision can be finalized and the new findings adopted. Benefits of Findings The following are some benefits of findings: . Public Information. Findings are helpful to the public since they offer an important opportunity to show how the City's decision promotes the public interest. . Encourage Interagency Communications. Findings can explain the basis of the City's decision to other governing bodies such as State and Federal agencies. . Assure That Standards Are Met. State law requires certain findings to be made when cities are acting in their quasi-judicial capacity on actions such as conditional use permits, variances, design reviews, subdivision approvals, etc. . Help Courts Interpret the Action. When litigation occurs, courts often look to findings to determine the underlying rationale for an action or requirement. Findings provide the local agency with an opportunity to tell its side of the story. Planning Commission Workshop Findings Page 5 What to Avoid When acting upon discretionary and non-discretionary matters, planning agencies should avoid the following: . Irrelevant findings. Findings based upon irrelevant data; for example, findings focusing on the qualities, attractiveness, the benefits to the community, or the economic difficulties in developing a project when the action is on a Variance which is irrelevant to the controlling issues of whether the strict application of zoning rules would prevent the would-be developer from utilizing the property to the same extent as other property owners in the same zoning district. . Boiler plate or conclusory findings. Findings which do not present specific facts and evidence leading to the final decision. . Perfunctory findings. Findings that are perfunctory and without discussion or deliberation and thus do not show the analytical route from evidence to decision. . Arbitrary and capricious findings. Findings based upon personal reasons (like or dislike of the project). S:\CddIPCREPORT\2005\workshop - Findings.doc ~ .M:na Ogdon 0 Assistant Community Development Director fJm~ Justina Willkom Associate Planner