PIT All Steering Group Meeting

February 18, 2004

Break-out Session Topics and Products

A. Break-out Group A: Institutionalizing the Changes

Introduction: The PIT process will need to be sustained over a long period. In order to be successful, it will require both quick and ongoing wins, a sustained effort, long-lasting improvements, and the creation of a culture of continuous and ongoing improvement. If the changes are not institutionalized, many will not last. These changes do not just happen; they require careful design and concerted ongoing efforts.

Session Goal: To develop a general approach for implementing the Steering Group recommendations and ensuring their success.

Possible Discussion Points:

Ø Once we finish developing our recommended improvements, what community review and input processes are needed?

Ø What approvals will be necessary?

Ø What is the roll out and implementation process? To what extent should we sequence and coordinate the various improvements?

Ø How do we communicate the changes to staff, applicants, and agents? What if they are controversial?

Ø Will we have to build support? What are the most effective ways to build that support?

Ø How will we know if the improvements work? What do we do if they don’t work as well as we expected?

Meeting Notes:

[Key points are in bold]

· Establish a lasting “Oversight Committee” to meet quarterly; Include representatives from Chambers of Commerce, P&D, etc.; Oversight Committee’s goal would be to ensure continued open communication and interaction with P&D

· Get news out to stakeholders; need for Civil Engineers’ Association, AIA, and other associations to be kept in the loop; advertise public workshops, and have them more often, not just 1 or 2

· Steering Group 1 is creating a list of key contact people, and welcomes suggestions.

· Sub-groups of Steering Group 3 have been productive (e.g., quantifying a threshold for grading to streamline the processing of permits; need to ensure that proposed projects will be eligible to benefit from this proposed threshold; goal for more projects to benefit from the proposed change)

· Importance of focusing on implementation

· By focusing on the questions, “How do we communicate the changes to staff, applicants, and agents? What if they are controversial?” it may be easier to look at how the sequencing of improvements should occur.

· Hire urban/rural planners, not Environmental Studies majors, and not just recent graduates from UCSB

· Ways we disseminate information to staff include: e-mail, staff meetings (typically every 2 weeks), divisional retreats, training sessions, policy papers/interpretations (need for public to have input)

· Ways we disseminate information to the public, applicants, and agents include: e-mail, the new and improved website, brochures/pamphlets

· Ways we can improve P&D’s dissemination of information to the public, applicants, and agents include: external training sessions, regularly scheduled public workshops (e.g., outreach), designate one person to ensure counters are stocked with brochures/pamphlets, add a computer terminal at each counter for the public to access, conduct public services announcements on Channel 20 (e.g., advertise our new user-friendly website)

· Steering Group 2 accomplishments and suggestions include: submittal checklist for applications; mentoring program for planners; zero tolerance for incomplete applications; for agricultural permits, involve the NRCS of the USDA for its engineering capabilities and to reduce redundancy in processing; assign cases to planners if they are familiar with the property; when planners on vacation, the processing of a proposed project should not stop; website improvements underway; pre-submittal meetings should be offered with both zoning and building counters; “One-Stop Shop” – one checklist should be created that includes all possible requirements from all County Departments

· A web-based submittal checklist

· For each proposed improvement, pick the most effective mode of communication from the following options: (1) e-mail to mailing lists, (2) hand-outs at counters, (3) public workshops

· Decision tree

· Importance of effectively communicating availability of information

· Importance of participatory process for policy making (e.g., trees, grading, etc.)

· Have planners visit and tour private firms to see how they make decisions when applying for proposed projects

· Applicants want assurance that proposed projects will be approved.

· P&D could hand-deliver changes (e.g., ordinances, etc.) to private firms.

· Importance of consistent application of regulations stressed.

· P&D staff has the opportunity to see what other County Departments do; P&D staff works with many other departments on the processing of projects.

· An informational video regarding the permit process from beginning to end, with updates to be added periodically.

· Need to recognize P&D’s varied audiences (e.g., landowners to experienced agents)

· Office hours to be held for the public to ask questions of experienced planners.

· Need to focus on questions “What is the roll out and implementation process? To what extent should we sequence and coordinate the various improvements?”

o Due to State budgetary constraints, there is a need to separate proposed improvements into 2 categories: 1) proposed improvements that don’t cost anything, and 2) proposed improvements that could impact P&D’s limited budget.

o A project manager should be assigned to create a priority list of the 2 categories of proposed improvements.

o Need to figure out roll out methods for proposed improvements that would not cause a fiscal impact.

o The Board of Supervisors has already given Steering Group 1 the green light—and Rita has already begun--to work on a video for the public that explains the ministerial permit process.

· PIT is helping to re-define how SB County does land use planning. P&D needs to provide options for all audiences. PIT needs to sustain momentum.

· Steering Group III is working with a consultant who is preparing a draft revised zoning ordinance. Currently, the consultant is comparing overlapping and conflicting ordinances that are effective now. There are 2 steps for preparing the new zoning ordinance:

o Step 1 will focus on creating a user-friendly document for both the public and staff.

o Step 2 will focus on substantial changes that will likely be politically controversial. We don’t want to lose the effort of Step 1 by getting to Step 2 too quickly.

· Institutionalize – How do we keep the momentum going?

· Questions, “Will we have to build support? What are the most effective ways to build that support?” – Need to invite everyone to become a part of the solution.

o Importance of knowing when the “product(s)” are going to be implemented.

o Is there a glimmer of hope yet? One person doesn’t see the interaction changing. Are projects (e.g., individual development applications) moving forward? One person says that no houses are being built in Orcutt.

o There is concern that if proposed improvements are not implemented, then the interaction with P&D will not improve.

· Suggestion that each of the 4 Steering Groups should come up with prioritized proposed improvements for implementation, with timelines (e.g., 3 months, 6 months, etc.), and report to the Board of Supervisors.

· Reminder that at the end of this evening, everyone will receive a list of accomplishments.

· How do you change planners’ public service approach? Should agents’ complaints about planners end up in EPRs and/or personnel files?

o Suggestion that the personnel process can be made more transparent.

o Complaint/suggestion forms could be provided, with a time limit for responding.

o Accountability comes from consistency and efficiency.

· Methods to Ascertain if PIT is working:

o Provide Questionnaires to Applicants

o Marketing Effort – When is the kick-off?

· How do we communicate when the topic, or proposed change, is controversial?

o Members of the public should be presenting the products, not P&D staff.

o P&D staff can improve on efficiency and consistency.

o Policies and regulations are typically controversial. Controversy can be addressed by the Board of Supervisors.

o Public Relations – Who’s the messenger? P&D should be pro-active, outreach, and contact public regarding possible change (e.g., in the form of editorials, etc.).

o Acknowledge problems. Illustrate remedies. Where’s the product? Has the PIT positively affected the permit process?

· Outreach via the new and improved website

o Ordinances are now there.

o Suggestion to make the website more interactive. For example, editorials could be placed on the website.

o Suggestion to add a chat room.

o Website is up and working. Questions from the public are already being made through the website, and Matt Murray sends the questions to the appropriate staff member(s) to respond within 24 hours.

Dave Ward presented the following summary to the rest of the larger group:

· Group A discussed how to implement change over time, and proposed the following:

o Roll out – Each Steering Group should prioritize a few projects, and come up with expected timelines and products.

o Communication – Recognition of various audiences. Focus on public outreach campaign. Public Relations – Need the right people (e.g., the public) delivering the message(s).

o Staff – For training, bring in local experts to broaden training for both the public and private sectors.

o Oversight Committee – Suggested structure for accountability that would include both members from the public (Chambers of Commerce, etc.) and representatives from P&D.

o Visitation – Staff should visit private firms and other County Departments.

o Add computer terminal at counters for public use.

o Hold office hours for questions of P&D staff.

o Public Access – Utilize the government access channel for training sessions, etc.

o Tools of Evaluation – Provide surveys and complaint forms to the public.

o Primary goal is consistency.

B. Break-out Group B – Integrating the Ongoing Improvement Efforts

Introduction: Many of the improvement areas we are examining are interdependent; the success of one will depend on the success of others. These include, for example: training for applicants, applicant on-line decision tree, intake checklist, intake staffing, one-stop shop, interdepartmental coordination, case assignment/the queue, case/project management, new planner checklist, 1-year planner training checklist, staff retention, planner specialization, mentoring, planning supervisor responsibilities, mandatory permit review within one week of case assignment, Accela monitoring and reporting, case tracking and on-line status reporting, ongoing applicant and stakeholder feedback, appeal processes and fees, collaborative problem-solving, faster processing, resolution of topical areas (e.g., grading, creek/riparian setbacks, tree protection, etc.), zoning ordinance reformatting, and web design and upkeep.

Session Goal: Ensure effective coordination of the steering groups and other improvement efforts.

Possible Discussion Points:

Ø Is each steering group getting what it needs from P&D and from the other groups?

Ø Are there areas of overlap between and among the groups? Is this a positive or a negative?

Ø Do we need to establish better coordination between the groups?

Ø Do certain changes need to be put in place first?

Ø Where are we now? Where are we headed?

Ø What does each of the groups need to know about what’s coming up to enhance coordination and integration?

Ø Is the work being done coherently? Consistently?

Ø Are there any missing elements that need to be considered now?

Meeting Notes:

Three General Areas/Categories of Efforts Needed

Intangibles: Attitudes + Leadership Culture of County Staff
Processes and Mechanics (Timing for a linear collaborative process

Technical definitions and timestamps consistency – BAR and P&D

Sequence of implementation (focus on ministerial process)

Define critical path

* = Number of Times Topic Repeated Within Group Discussion

GOALS

Prioritize & Organize (*****)
Clarify ministerial process mechanics & timing
More informative website – Keep PIT Website Up-to-Date
Staff attitude still needs work
Clear definition of what a ministerial permit is
Goal: No applicant complaints for next 6 months that the permit application/review/approval process took too long
Interdepartmental (P&D) consistency – especially between North and South
Finish policy papers
We Need Strong Leadership at the Departmental Level (****)

SUGGESTIONS

· Task oriented committees with members from all groups.

One contact person for each group for key areas of focus
Quick results from nearly completed tasks involving “future participants” planners, BAR, Architects, etc.
Website to be updated continually
Central contact person from PIT I
Start implementing change

Task based committee

Bring people in who will be currently working with the topics or issues
Too many topics
Prioritize topics – test – implement
Reconfirm that permit is ministerial not discretionary
Deal with attitude
There is trouble with the department leadership
Identify staff leadership and implement to follow through (****)
Develop guiding sequence - we need to define critical path (*****)
Feedback from individual groups to division managers

Jackie, Mike, Steve D., Dianne, and Tom to make implementation approvals & plan for sequence

Test/pilot proposed samples
Where do Public Works and other agencies and departments fit into this process?
Map out ministerial process so other department and agencies are involved at the appropriate time

GAPS

BAR process as it relates to policies
Mechanics and timing of PIT and ministerial process

C. Break-out Group C: Improving P&D’s Relationships and Interactions with the Community

Introduction: Several recent P&D initiatives—the Housing Element update, the Santa Ynez Community Plan, the Residential Second Unit ordinance, among others—and several proposed projects—Orcutt Marketplace and Westmont College, for example—have engendered vocal community opposition and conflict. A new model for how P&D and the county as a whole initiate consideration of major issues and difficult projects, and work together towards the successful implementation of adopted programs, may be necessary.

The PIT process is new for P&D. It depends on the willingness of community members to assist and an accompanying openness by P&D management and staff. It may be helpful to use similar or related approaches on other issues as well. There may also be a need for ongoing interactions and exchanges of viewpoints, even when there is no direct issue or project of interest.

Session Goal: Design one or more new models of how P&D and the community can together design the future of the urban and rural environment for Santa Barbara County.

Possible Discussion Points:

Ø What rethinking is needed on the way P&D is asked to do big-issue thinking, leadership, and guidance on major planning efforts for the County?

Ø How can ideas be developed so as to provide for collaborative ownership and resolution?

Ø How can we best proceed in the development of partnerships, and therefore also the processes, documents, and models in order to be proactive in pursuit of the vision?

Ø How can we build on what PIT has started to use as a model and push the door wider towards the vision?

Ø How will leadership be provided and initiative ensured?

Meeting Notes:

Within P&D and County

Focus on Appropriate Workloads
Is P&D taking on too much at once? (scope of work too much and timeline too quick).
Divide the work between urban area and rural areas. Very different issues. Maybe have planners specialize in different geographical areas, so they are in tune with the issues in their area.
Articulated Vision and Clear Direction from County from the Supervisors to staff.
Feedback Loop crucial: Between agencies, within P&D and even within PIT

Applicants and P&D

Articulated Vision and Clear Direction from County

From Supervisors to applicants
From Management to staff

Attitude needs to be improved between P&D and Applicants

Managing public involvement/input/review

Attitude needs to be improved

Between P&D and Public
Between Applicants and Public –

(Subgroup re: developer’s attitude – Rice Ranch anecdote.

Better communication and early public involvement – will result in transparency and trust
Lack of early communication has built-in animosity and roots of distrust
Need to change the way P&D puts out information
Outreach
Noticing: Need to make sure all interested parties receive notices
Feedback Loop

Hans Bleiker approach to public meetings

Goal is to achieve consent rather than consensus
Legitimacy – getting public to see that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, and that you are, indeed, the one to do it.

Establish rules of order for meetings and workshops to avoid “bully” mentality
Take the Time to Get it Right

Focus on appropriate workloads
Is P&D taking on too much at once? Not just with PIT, but with all major undertakings
Need earlier involvement of the community
Seemingly arbitrary time constraints make people nervous and may result in less cooperative work sessions as people feel they need to get out all of their fears and concerns first, rather than starting with gathering information and having productive discussions.

Ex-discussion item: Consider Partnering Process (a model used by construction teams on major projects).