 Search this site... |
||
Applications, Forms & Documents
Boards, Commissions, & Committees
Permit Information
Projects & Programs
P&D Divisions
Agricultural Land Use Planning
Building & Safety
Energy
Long Range Planning
| Related Links |
Steering Group 2: Application Preparation and Case Processing |
|
CharterProviding all needed assistance and guidance in order to receive complete submittal packages the first time—the factor that most determines the length of review is the completeness of the submittal. Completeness needs to be achieved at a macro level, so that applicants and their agents can be assured of the overall approval of a project, prior to spending effort on detailed design. Improvements here can include, among others, that we create checklists and modularized forms that streamline and communicate our handouts and application requirements, and that implement this layered approach.Revamping the process of case assignment—ministerial cases are now assigned on a rotating basis to a planner as soon as they come in, whether or not the submittal is complete, and whether or not the planner has any available time to work on the case. This often causes a new case to sit in a planner’s inbox for many weeks before the submittal is reviewed for completeness and processing can begin, even though the applicant naturally assumes that the submittal is complete and the planner has initiated a timely review. In addition, because ministerial cases are assigned on a rotating basis, the assignment does not always match a given planner’s skill level and expertise. Revamping our case management practices—we can better manage cases as projects, identifying early any go / no go issues, not requiring great levels of detail be developed to resolve what often are conceptual issues, scheduling concurrent tasks that are now approached on a sequential basis, etc. As each case is assumed, the number of hours needed to review and the due date for the final decision must be projected and shared with the applicant. This will get everyone on the same page and avoid the “goal displacement” so common in complex processes, where the specific tasks become the focus, rather than the desired end results. In addition, improvements can be made to the way that tasks are undertaken, and by whom, on each case. Right now, all cases (whether ministerial or discretionary) are assigned to a single planner. This means that a relatively inexperienced planner has sole responsibility for a routine case that may have a very complex aspect and that our most experienced planners have sole responsibility for complex cases, even though the vast majority of tasks on the complex cases are still routine. Instead, we are recommending that we more efficiently utilize our staff resources by ensuring that case tasks be undertaken by the person whose skills and knowledge best matches against that task. This means that, for example, an experienced planner would take the lead for an inexperienced planner on the more complex tasks, etc. Providing consistent case processing and determinations, between the north and south, and across planners—in order to address the problem of inconsistency, it is necessary that we, among other improvements, codify our institutional knowledge and disseminate this knowledge to planners, applicants, and the development community. For example, ordinance and policy interpretations, County Counsel opinions, and decision-maker actions could be systematically cataloged, updated, and made easily accessible, and that every instance of inconsistent interpretations be taken to management or the Director for resolution. |
|
Meetings |
|
|
August 25, 2003 |
September 8, 2003 |
| December 8, 2003 |
January
12, 2004 |
Back to Process Improvement History
|
Note: Many of our documents and pages require Adobe® Reader® or equivalent on your computer. |
|||
We
welcome your questions
and comments on this site.
Created by the County of Santa Barbara for the benefit of its citizens
and inhabitants.