§ 19.11.008 REVIEW PROCESS.
   (A)   Planning Director’s review.
      (1)   Upon receipt of the completed application, the Planning Director shall complete an initial review of the application to determine if the application is appropriately made. An application for a development agreement is “appropriately made” if it is made by a qualified applicant for an eligible development project. If the Planning Director determines that the application is not appropriately made, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant of this fact and the application process shall terminate.
      (2)   If the Planning Director determines that the application is appropriately made, the Planning Director shall evaluate the application to determine if the county should enter into the proposed development agreement. The Planning Director shall make a report to the Planning Commission which shall hold a public hearing to consider the application as further specified in this section.
   (B)   Planning Commission review.
      (1)   If the Planning Director determines that the application is appropriately made, the matter shall be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. After the public hearing by the Planning Commission, the Commission shall make its recommendation about the application for a development agreement by written resolution to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission shall not recommend that the county enter into the development agreement unless the Commission makes all of the following findings:
         (a)   The development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific or area plans;
         (b)   The development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulation prescribed for, the zoning district in which the real property is located;
         (c)   The development agreement is consistent with public health, safety and general welfare and good land use practice;
         (d)   The development agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the surrounding community;
         (e)   The proposed development project should be encouraged in order to meet important economic, social, environmental or planning goals of the county; and
         (f)   The subject development project and development agreement are consistent with this chapter.
      (2)   The Commission’s resolution to the Board shall include evidence supporting its determination regardless of the nature of the Commission’s recommendation.
   (C)   Decision by the Board of Supervisors.
      (1)   Upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Board of Supervisors shall schedule a public hearing on the matter. After completion of this hearing, the Board may accept, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It may, but need not, refer matters not previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearing back to the Planning Commission for further report and recommendation.
      (2)   The Board of Supervisors shall not approve a development agreement unless it makes the findings specified in division (B) of this section. Even if all of the findings set forth in division (B) of this section can be made, the Board of Supervisors, in its sole discretion, may deny the development agreement on the grounds that in its opinion the proposed development agreement is not in the best interest of the public.
      (3)   The Board of Supervisors may add, modify or delete any provision of the proposed development agreement as a condition of approval.
   (D)   Ordinance approving the development agreement.
      (1)   If the Board of Supervisors approves the development agreement, it shall do so by the adoption of an ordinance approving the development agreement and authorizing the Planning Director to execute the development agreement.
      (2)   After the ordinance approving the development agreement takes effect, the Planning Director shall execute the agreement on behalf of the county. No development agreement shall be signed by the Director until it has been duly signed by the applicant. If the applicant has not signed and returned the approved development agreement to the Director for the Director’s signature within 30 days of the Board’s adoption of the ordinance approving the development agreement, the application shall be deemed withdrawn by applicant.
      (3)   The effective date of the agreement shall be the effective date of the ordinance, unless a later date or the occurrence of an event is specified in the development agreement as the effective date.
      (4)   No development agreement shall be approved until the underlying legislative approvals have been obtained by the developer.
   (E)   Notices/public hearings.
      (1)   Notice. The Planning Director shall give notice of all public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to consider adoption of a development agreement as required by Cal. Gov’t Code § 65867 and by this chapter.
      (2)   Failure to receive notice. The failure of any person entitled to notice by law to receive the notice does not affect the authority of the county to enter into a development agreement.
      (3)   Rules governing conduct of public hearings. Public hearings shall be conducted as nearly as possible in accordance with the procedural standards required for taking legislative action. Each person interested in the application shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The applicant shall have the burden of proof to establish the mandatory findings specified in divisions (B) and (C)(2) above.
      (4)   Irregularity in proceedings. No action, inaction or recommendation regarding a proposed development agreement shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by a court by reason of any error, irregularity or omission as to any matter pertaining to the application, notice, finding, record, hearing, report, recommendation or any matter of procedure unless after an examination of the entire case, including the evidence, a court is of the opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial, that the complaining party suffered a substantial injury by reason of the prejudice caused by the error, and that a different result would have been more probable than not had the prejudicial error not occurred. There shall be no presumption:
         (a)   That an error is prejudicial;
         (b)   That a prejudicial error resulted in substantial injury; or
         (c)   That a different result would have been more probable if the prejudicial error would not have occurred.
(1966 Code, § 6A.05-8) (Ord. 653, § 1(part); Ord. 891, § 1)