Interaction Group
Santa Barbara County

Process Improvement Steering Groups

Interaction Committee

Oct. 15, 2003 Minutes

Andersen’s Pea Soup, Buellton

General information:

Group Chairman Dave Cross called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Fourteen people attended, including nine from county staff or county consultants.

Tom Frutchey reported that all four subcommittees should give Chairman Cross specific recommendations by Nov. 20 for him to present to the Board of Supervisors on Dec. 2 to make sure we are heading in the right direction. He also said that the Process Improvement Steering Groups agendas and minutes are being posted online now, with the minutes about a meeting behind. Susette Naylor asked to see if we could get a report on how many hits the PIT web pages are getting.

Minutes

The Oct. 1 meeting minutes were approved as corrected.

Subcommittee reports

User identification (Kimberly McCarthy, Susette Naylor, Dan Nemechek and Zoraida Abresch)

The subcommittee developed a list of who contacts and interacts with Planning and Development at the counter for information about ministerial permits:

External Users

Agents

Architects

Local

Out of County/State

Sign Contractors

Property owners

Residential

Commercial

Agricultural

Appraisers

Real Estates Agents

Former Planners

Draftspersons/Designers

Friends representing Property Owners (not acting as agents)

Neighbors representing Property Owners

Tenants

Residential

Commercial

Agricultural

Contractors

Pool

Electrical

Mechanical

Plumbing

General

Roofing

Fire Restoration

Termite Repair

Staff representing County Supervisors

City Planners

Property owners with Zoning Violations

Property owners reporting zoning violations

Mobile Home Agents

County of SB Surveyors Office

County Assessors Office

County Environmental Health Services

County Public Works

Potential Property Owners

Engineers/Surveyors

Developers

Local/Non-local

Internal Users

Primary Contact

Counter Planner I

Counter Planner II

Counter Planner III

Zoning Enforcement Planners

Supervising Planner, Zoning Counter/ Zoning Enforcement

Secondary Contact

Planning Techs I and II

Building Permit Techs I and II

Development Review Planners

Comprehensive Planning Planners

Energy Planners

Supervising Planners (all divisions)

Building Inspectors

Supervising Building Engineering Inspector

Building Official/ Deputy Directors

Steering group members recommended adding lawyers to the list.

The subcommittee also reported reaching the following preliminary recommendations:

The subcommittee originally set out to identify “users” on both sides of the information counter and how they interact. After developing the preliminary users list in an in-depth discussion, the subcommittee recognized that the “who” wasn’t as critical as to “how” and “what” information is communicated. As a result, the subcommittee recommended:

Restructure job classifications to include public information and or customer service experience for jobs with significant public contact.
Provide more suitable trainings that go beyond planning issues.

Review training budget.

Allow for promotional opportunities and career growth within the same Division/Section to retain knowledgeable and qualified staff (i.e. Counter Planners).
More functional and efficient work areas on both sides of the counter.
Develop tools and methods of communicating information to people with different types of learning styles (Visual, Audio, etc.). Examples Home Depot style workshops, video presentations on public access, and handouts with “straight forward” illustrations. (Public Awareness Subcommittee).
Develop user friendly handouts with clear language and illustrations.

Overview of permit processes including process maps for Non-hearing (Ministerial) and Hearing (Discretionary) permits.
FAQ Sheet—list of the 20 most frequently asked questions i.e. what are setbacks and we do we have them.
Make known to the public what types of information are available at the information counter. APN, Address, Zoning, Permit applications etc.

Make information available on line (Web).

The bigger training budget would involve more customer service training, going beyond standard planning and development issues, and more outside perspective to look at things in a different way. Handouts are not being used effectively. Users should be surveyed to find out why. The discussion also recommended having a document custodian to make sure the handouts are kept current. The subcommittee was asked to put the above recommendations in a final form that the entire committee could ratify.

Public awareness (Alice Howe, Tom Smith, Kelly Bodison, Dave Cross and Jerry Bunin)

The subcommittee recommended that information on how to obtain a ministerial permit should be:

Offered through a free class taught every other week by the department;
The class should be filmed as a video people can borrow, rent or have;
The same information should also be provided online and through handouts;
More than one person should be ready to teach the class whenever it is scheduled;
Bilingual support should be there for every class in case that service is needed;
Evaluation forms should be given to class users and everyone obtaining the permit to assess which methods are being used and how to improve them;
Flyers advertising the class should be given to local architects, engineers and similar professionals and displayed in county buildings and departments.

Cross reported that creating an interactive DVD on the ministerial permit process could cost $5,000. Alice Howe reported that filming the video would cost $37 per hour or $67 per hour to film and edit. She said reproducing it would cost $6.50 for 20, $4.75 for 50 and $4 for 100 videos from the company that films material for the government access channel. Reproducing the material on a DVD would be $40 for the initial set up and $14 for 20, $10 for 50, and $9 for 100. Committee members suggested asking the Brooks Institute about filming an instructive video of the ministerial process as a class project. The subcommittee is supposed to write down the specifics on the class, video and other recommendations for Dave Cross to present Dec. 2 to the supervisors.

Web Page Development (Bernie Stableford, Susan Warnstrom, Salud Carbajal, Jennifer Slayman, Steve Mason, Bill Wayson, Joanne Wilkins, and Kimberly McCarthy

It was reported that Joanne Wilkins has already begun working on the project to create a Ministerial Permit page for the P&D web page. The goals are: to simplify access to information and create a user-friendly page.

The group outlined 10 things it wants the web page to deliver:

Find the status of permits and other applications
List of submittal requirements
Process Decision tree or a flow chart
Definitions or FAQ
Fee display for Ministerial permits only with listed caveats
Comment/ Survey Section
Payment online for “opened” accounts
Search Engine
Look and feel of good Public Relations
Access to Service – get help on the phone (for a fee)

The group also discussed the need for research capability on various parcels, APNs or addresses without breaking the new state laws of confidentiality. Salud requested a timeline be created to let the full Interaction Group know exactly when we will have our project completed. The technical portion of the subcommittee – Joanne Wilkins, Steve Mason, Bill Wayson and Jennifer Slayman will meet separately to work on the project.

The subcommittee reported that since the above meeting it arranged a meeting with county staff members to get more specific information on the timeline and noted that the county doesn’t now accept charge cards and will have to for online payments.

Continuous Improvement (Tom Frutchey and Kimberly McCarthy)

The subcommittee wanted to look at tracking system to find out how many improvement suggestions are received and implemented, including differentiating between short- and long-term implementation. That information could be given to the supervisors after a year to see how much staff time was saved and public satisfaction increased from the changes. A supervising planner or inspector at the county would be responsible for accepting the suggestions and shepherding them through the process. The public could also make ordinance and policy suggestions, such as renting house out for weddings. The discussion suggested giving people a target time frame for how soon some one will respond initially to their suggestion. Cross asked the subcommittee for a written proposal for the next meeting so the steering group can endorse it and he can take it to the supervisors Dec. 2.

Open Discussion

Frutchey reported that the county has about 500 ministerial permits in process at anyone time and about half are approved instantly, another 25 percent take 3 to 4 days to to get approved while the staff check questions, and the rest have wind up having a variety of discretionary aspects that move them out of the ministerial process or delay it. Susette Naylor said this was crucial information and that the criteria which creates the sorting of the ministerial applications should be investigated. Two other steering groups are also dealing with the line between ministerial and discretionary permits. He reported that California is the only state in which development of privately owned parcels is a privilege rather than a right. He noted that other California counties are going through a similar process, trying to fix it like Santa Barbara County. One of the PIT steering groups is researching the line between right and privilege and another is examining the relationship between community plans and all the overlays.

He said that when the steering group finishes its initial work, it could tackle new topics. Department Director Val Alexeeff felt ministerial permits were a good starting place, but wants to continue the improvement process after the initial work is done. Salud Carbajal said the supervisors see this as a beginning, have assigned their staffs because they want to see it succeed, and expect it to go beyond this start. Frutchey noted that steering Group 2 is looking at a one stop shopping approach. Bob Royster suggested looking at certificates of compliance and to reach a clearer definition of ministerial. Cross said that we might be making recommendations to other steering groups to consider.

The next meeting is 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 5 at Andersen’s in Buellton.