Appeal for Minor Use Permit on Jack Creek Road Passed

NORTH COUNTY — At the San Luis Obispo County Supervisors meeting held on Tuesday, Dec. 13, the Nov. 8, 2022, election results were declared when Item 13 on the Consent Agenda was pulled. 

The results were certified by the election officials and sent to the Secretary of State on Wednesday, Dec. 7. 

“The statute then says that the board shall, and it’s a requirement, shall declare the results, and after the results are declared, certificates of election go to each of the winning candidates,” stated County Counsel Rita Neal. “What I would express to this board is it is a mandatory requirement that you declare the results based on the certification of your election official.”


Supervisor Debbie Arnold expressed that she did not feel comfortable going forward with declaring the results as there were known issues with the voting materials that were mailed out prior to the election and irregularities during the processing of the ballots, as well as the recount for District 2 Supervisor taking place.

The council clarified with Neal that all ballots and other voting materials would still be available and not destroyed if they declared the results at the meeting.

“There are certain time frames within the election code for the elections official to retain certain documents. Most of them are retained for six months following a certification,” answered Neal.

There are also timeframes for recounts and contesting the election in court, with all of those timeframes taking place before any destruction of voting records. It was also stated by Neal that there was a possibility of the Secretary of State taking legal action against the board if they did not declare the election results at the meeting.

A manual recount for District 2 Supervisor, which has Bruce Gibson as the certified election winner and Bruce Jones trailing by less than 20 votes, was submitted on Monday, Dec. 12, and the elections official has seven days to start the recount process, which started taking place on Monday, Dec. 19. 

The motion to declare the election results passed in a 4-1 vote, with Arnold voting no. 

A hearing also took place regarding considering an appeal (APPL2022-00010) by Allyson Magda. The Planning Department Hear Officer denied a Minor Use Permit on Sept. 2, 2002, to allow a vacation rental. The project includes modifications to allow the proposed vacation rental to be 422 feet from an already existing vacation rental instead of the 1,500 feet required due to ordinance standards. The site is within the Agricultural land use category and the Adelaida Sub Area of the North County Planning Area in District 1 at 5240 Jack Creek Road, approximately 3.5 miles west of Templeton.

The project was presented before TAAG (Templeton Area Advisory Group) in their July meeting. The TAAG committee members recommended denial of the project. 

The hearing officer was not able to find that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the public and that it would not be consistent with the neighborhood’s character. Citing community concerns of oversaturation of vacation rentals, the existing density of vacation rentals in the neighborhood exceeding the limit, and no unique circumstances that render the minimum separation requirement unnecessary. 

The appeal was gone over by the hearing officer, and some language was revised, though the recommendation to adopt the resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Department Hearing Officer’s denial was advised.

“We haven’t received any referrals from any of the agencies that would have concern with any of the health and safety of this area, of public works, of traffic,” stated Mandi Pickens of ANGLE Land Use, representing Magda. “If we had received those, I completely understand basing denial on this project, but we have not had any concern nor have been asked for any sort of reports for traffic, noise, etc., that would help elevate planning’s concern.” 

She also stated that the proposed vacation rental has 40 letters of community support as well as support for the property’s neighbors. The proposed vacation rental would also be a one-bedroom with the owners on site.

Magda also spoke to the supervisor board, citing her family history and reasons why her appeal should be passed.

Supervisor John Peschong stated that he noted that there was no one at the meeting to oppose the appeal. He was in favor of the vacation rental appeal and started a tentative motion to uphold the appeal. The motion was seconded by Arnold.

The motion to uphold the appeal passed four-to-one, with Gibson voting no.