Subgroup Recommendations

Status

Level of Review Required to Implement

Coordination with other steering groups

Milestones/

Performance Measures

1.  BAR/Design-Related Matters                                            Contact person(s): Cecilia Brown, brownknight1@cox.net

The County of Santa Barbara’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR) plays a necessary and important role in enhancing the visual quality of our built environment.   The recommendations below address administrative processes and procedures and not the BAR’s deliberative process or their decisions.  It is hoped that these recommendations will make application processing more efficient and effective for the applicant, the county, and the public. 

1A

Problem: Community, neighborhoods and neighbors are unaware of BAR design review taking place; their appeals are received at the LUP-stage which prolongs application processing.

Solution: Earlier notification may subvert a lengthy appeals process. Institute mailed noticing for all projects at BAR conceptual level to residents within a 300 foot radius of project; applicant to

complete noticing as part of application. 

Future

Board of Supervisors-

Ordinance

Amendments

Group #3:

Ordinance and Policies;

Streamlining

appeals

Mailed noticing to residents within 300’ for projects at BAR conceptual review

1B

Problem: Appeals to BAR approvals and LUPs are time and cost inefficient and the county incurs excessive costs for frivolous appeals. 

Solution: (1) Revise appeals process to occur after BAR preliminary approval rather than at final which allows an appellant to express formal concerns earlier in the process.  A “Preliminary intent to file appeal” would be the method/form to appeal the BAR’s preliminary approval.  This might encourage/initiate a mediation process prior to final review and might reduce planning commission appeals of BAR decisions.

(2) No appeal at LUP-stage if “measures of substantial conformity” determine no validity of appeal.

(3) Provide additional standards in ordinances to address problem areas (see section 1C Solution 2)

(4) For LUP projects that include architectural/ design considerations but do not require BAR review, initiate a mailed noticing procedure (as described above) in addition to posted noticing. If the project is appealed, and the appeal is based on design issues, project would go to BAR to resolve issues prior to proceeding to an appeal before the Planning Commission. Identify thresholds for when LUP projects that include architectural/design considerations would require mailed noticing. 

Future

Board of Supervisors-

Ordinance

Amendments

Group #3:

Ordinance and Policies;

Streamlining

Appeals

Group #2: Permit Process Subcommittee; identifying ministerial permit levels

Fewer number of appeals due to streamlined process and addressing issues earlier in the application process

1C

Problem: Community dissatisfied with design standards applied to projects not required to undergo BAR review.

Solution: (1) Update current design standards in community plans and develop standards for those areas/communities without any design standards.

(2) Identify new thresholds for BAR review to address problem areas (e.g., floor to area ratios, size of additions, daylight plane, and privacy issues) and incorporate into community plans and design standards developed for other communities.           

Future

Board of

Supervisors—

design standards

and/or community plans

Group#3:

Ordinance and Policies;

Community plans

Updated design standards for community plans and new design standards for communities without design standards

1D

Problem: Public is unaware of how to participate in/not knowledgeable about BAR process.

Solution: (1) Include a new section in BAR guidelines that describes the public participation process.

(2) Televise BAR meetings so public either in audience or at home is aware of BAR deliberations.

(3) Ensure BAR Chair solicits public participation for each agenda item, as necessary: have BAR members use microphones so public can follow discussion of BAR members.

(4) Post the public participation section from BAR guidelines by the speaker slips/agendas in hearing room.

(5) Add brief information section on public process/participation to BAR agenda so those reading an agenda are aware of how they can participate.

Future

Director

Group #1: Nature of the Interaction

Informed and efficient public participation in BAR process

1E

Problem: Architectural Review Committees’ (i.e., approved homeowner’s associations/community design organizations) project pre-approvals may not always be included/considered in BAR applications/review.

Solution: (1) Include a check box for Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on preliminary plan checklist (informs applicant about applicable ARC) and in plan check (informs BAR as to whether ARC conditions have been satisfied).

(2) Ensure agendas are emailed to each ARC so they may follow projects appearing before the BAR and be aware/take necessary action to ensure that pre-approvals are being done.

(3) Update all BAR materials to include list of ARCs with contact information and review procedures. 

(4) Incorporate links to ARC standards in PIT computerized ordinance/database effort.

(5) Continue to allow approvals from the ARC and the BAR on a concurrent basis.

Future

Director

Group #1: Nature of the Interaction

Online Ordinance/ Database

Effort

Less conflict between Architectural Review Committees’ project pre-approvals and County approvals

1F

Problem: BAR application/planning design review process is inefficient, lacks consistency in interpretation of information throughout the planning/design review process, and incomplete applications hinder BAR/planning process.

Solution: (1) BAR application/land use application to provide clarity (i.e., to provide thresholds-like grading) and be decision-tree based to expedite planning review.  Application completeness becomes responsibility of applicant.

(2) Planning staff to provide at conceptual design review a preliminary plan check to the BAR and applicant.  This would give information on project deficiencies (e.g. zoning inconsistencies, non-receipt of community architectural review committee pre-approvals, etc), ensure information is consistent throughout the planning (from planner to planner) and design review process, and provide BAR with complete information about the project.  

Future

Director

Group #1: Nature of the Interaction

More complete applications; more efficient review process

2. Permit Process                                          Contact person(s): Laurel Perez, Peter Lawson, Anne Coates,  Petra Leyva 

2A

Problem:  Applicant and planner uncertainty as to permit complexity, unreasonable submittal requirements, and excessive and unpredictable processing timeframes.

Solution:  Create a total of four permit categories with application submittal requirements and processing timeframes commensurate with the permit level (e.g., Basic, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 – see attached for more detailed description).  Create application forms that match permit levels.

Need permit types and submittal requirements to be coordinated with the “Decision Tree” effort.

Monitor processing timeframes and P&D requests for additional information for accountability and possible adjustments.

2B

Problem:  Submittal requirements are not commensurate with project and frequent Department requests for material, plans or reports that are not necessary for project analysis. 

Solution:  Create and publish a “Decision Tree” that allows planners and applicants to determine their permit type and the plans and reports necessary to process their application.  Planners must ask “what more can be gained from additional report or information, is it critical?”

Consistent use of Decision Tree will result in a more predictable and reasonable review.

2C

Problem:  Applicants unclear on what needs to be submitted.  P&D requests additional information on most applications. 

Solution:  Create and use a “Submittal Checklist” that is completed by P&D front counter staff specific to the project and used by applicant to prepare submittal.  Signed by both parties for accountability.  Department adopts policy to not accept incomplete applications.

Application requirements need to tie into the “Decision Tree”.

Monitor the number of complete applications submitted and those apps that are turned-away at in-take.

2D

Problem:  Unreasonable timeframes for processing ministerial projects.

Solution:  Assign reasonable processing timeframes for Basic, Level 1 and Level 2 projects.  P&D to increase accountability for processing timeframes.  Reward planners who meet timeframes.

Monitor and report on success and adjust process or timeframes if necessary.

2E

Problem:  Inconsistent, inexperienced direction provided at front counter.

Solution:  Assign experienced planners to the front counter and create opportunity for advancement for planners who work the front counter. Need strong supervision and front counter management.  Supervisor available to staff and public at all times.

Monitor success and poll applicants and planners periodically for feedback.

2F

Problem:  No on-line access to applications, application status, property information and maps.

Solution:  Provide applications, property information/maps and interdepartmental comments and application review status on-line.

Pending

Online Ordinance/ Database

Effort

Mission accomplished once this information is available on-line.

2G

Problem:  Applications submitted that are inconsistent with policy, insufficient / inaccurate information.

Solution:  Encourage planner consultations and pre-application meetings.  Do not accept incomplete or inaccurate applications.  Advertise this “no tolerance” on incomplete applications to applicants.

Monitor frequency of consults and poll applicants and planners on success.

2H

Problem:  Planner consultations and pre-applications can take one month or more to obtain.

Solution:  Department to place priority on planner consultations.  Provide processing incentives for applications that have pre-applications or planner consultations (i.e., reduced processing timeframe)?

Case assignment & initial call/ meeting within one week.

2I

Problem:  Pubic noticing requirements delay project processing.

Solution:  Require applicants to complete the noticing requirements (labels, radius map, noticing affidavit) and submit with all applications that require noticing.

Monitor and report on success.

2J

Problem:  Applicants that are turned away at In-Take because they are missing an item must make a new appointment and wait to submit.

Solution:  During the In-Take meeting, the planner will use the application submittal checklist to identify the additional required item(s) and sign the form allowing the applicant to submit at the counter without an appointment once they have the additional item(s).

3. Ag Coordination                              Contact person(s): Anne Almy, Andy Caldwell, Lannie Stableford, Jeff Thomas  

3A

Problem:  Redundant Federal, State and local agency reviews delay time-sensitive agricultural projects and drive up agricultural production costs.

Solutions:  Streamline agricultural permit processing; integrate P&D’s permit process with NRCS and CRCD agency efforts.  Enable NRCS and/or CRCD to work as lead permit agencies with P&D acting in an oversight capacity; revise P&D’s land development fee schedule to reflect value of changed work effort.

Actively engaging in discussions with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Cachuma Resources Conservation District (CRCD).

Reviewing existing agricultural/grading permit streamlining programs in Napa, SLO and Ventura.

Board of Supervisors

Inclusion of NRCS and CRCD biologists on the County’s approved consultant list.

Coordinated development of rural area watershed management plans, with joint NEPA/CEQA documents, public review and full program buy in by the County, implementation by farmers, NRCS and CRCD.

3B

Problem:  Agricultural expansion is confuted by competing interests/policies.

Solutions:  Promote agricultural expansion wherever feasible, including within urban areas.  Reconcile application of resource protection policies, including wetland protection policies (consider applicable definition), to (inland) lands under agricultural production (or proposed for conversion to ag) with County goals to expand and intensify agricultural production in rural areas.

Brainstorm

Board of Supervisors

No net loss of acres under cultivation, including both open field and greenhouses, from 1/2004 levels with the ultimate goal of expanded acreage devoted to cultivated agriculture.

County/Ag partnership in development & publication of Implementation of Resource Protection Policies on Lands In or Proposed for Agricultural Production policy paper.

3C

Problem:  Urban interests are being imposed on rural lands through community plan updates.

Solution: Outside of the south coast, limit community plans to designated urban, established rural neighborhood and inner rural areas. Develop watershed management plans for all rural areas outside of community plan boundaries.

Board of Supervisors

Group #3, Ordinance and Policies

Community and area plan boundaries redrawn consistent with recommended solution.

Development of rural area watershed management plans and implementation in concert with NRCS and CRCD.

4. Case Assignment                                                                     Contact person(s): Laurel Perez, Anne Coates, Petra Leyva  

4A

Problem:  The current “rotational” case assignment system results in overloaded planners receiving even more cases.

Solution:  Implement a case assignment system that distributes cases to planners who have time to work on them (the “Queue”).

Implement a pilot program and monitor its success with applicants and P&D

4B

Problem:  Excessive delays for initial planner contact with applicant.

Solution:  Commit to timeframe for initial contact with applicant (within three weeks), with a meaningful feedback or meeting with applicant within four weeks from submittal.

Supervise closely to confirm that applicants are hearing from planners accordingly

4C

Problem:  No planner presence at Conceptual BAR review.

Solution:  Need to further evaluate possible solutions.

Need to coord. with the BAR group.

4D

Problem:  Subsequent applications for a project are not always assigned to the same planner.

Solution:  Assign cases to the same planner that previously worked on the project if the planner is still at P&D.

Supervise closely to confirm that this occurs

5. Interdepartmental Coordination                    Contact person(s): Jessica Kinnehan &  Mary McCaffrey

5A

Problem: Lack of public information or education regarding submittal requirements for land use and building permits.  Applicants want to be aware of what is needed for a complete submittal and if their project is possible.

Solution: Implement Planning & Development website containing user friendly online access to submittal requirements for various projects, particular zoning requirements, building permit submittal requirements, permit applications, etc., and to improve the permit process. Provide minimal submittal requirements hand-outs for applicants. Provide applicant’s with the option of having a pre-submittal meeting for Building & Planning to review their plans for possible corrections, etc. A check-off list would be provided to assist them in submitting a complete project.

Process in the works.

Planning & Development website has been modified and improved at present

5B

Problem: Project requirements for Planning & Development, County departments and related agencies (e.g., utility companies, etc.) for project permit process are not clear to applicants.  One department’s requirements may be detrimental to other agencies’ requirements.

Solution: Better and efficient communication between Planning & Development departments, County departments and related agencies to help determine submittal and project requirements. Distribute plans to necessary departments or agencies as needed for initial clearances for projects in timely manner.  Provide the applicant with a contact list (names & numbers) of which agency would require clearances for their project.

This problem is being reviewed by our group

Communication with other County departments has begun and it is recommended that departments coordinate with each other.

5C

Problem: Applicants do not know whom to contact regarding their project’s initial & final clearances and sometime cannot contact the necessary agency to check status of their project clearance or building permit status.  Contractors would like to be able to check the status of their building permit inspection and see if they passed or if there are corrections.

Solution: Coordinate with other County departments and related agencies to provide an electronic clearance process for final signoffs on Building projects. Provide public online accessibility in regards to project permit status with County departments and related agencies (the applicants can check their permit status online and confirm other departments’ clearances.

Provide a contact person for a particular department or agency if the public needs a contact in regards to their project status. 

Proposed as a future service is online Building Permit Inspection status and possible application for inspections. 

Progress has begun, the electronic signoff project is in the works and progressing well.

Presently, our group has attended a meeting including Mike Zimmer and staff, County department heads and related agencies on the electronic signoff process

6. Case Intake                                                                                            Contact person(s):  Jack Boysen and Tom Frutchey

6A

Problem: Lack of public information or education regarding submittal requirements for land use and building permits.  Applicants want to be aware of what is needed for a complete submittal and if their project is possible.

Solution: A client-based approach toward applicants for ministerial permits seems more appropriate than the current approach. To this end, initial applicant contact should be directed to more senior supervisory personnel.  It is envisioned that application intakes would be at the Supervising Planner and Senior Planner level and that this Case Manager be the primary contact with the applicant throughout the permitting process. The intake process would include a determination of applicant fees, complexity of issues, and timeframe for completion.

Process in the works.

6B

Problem: The Department currently assigns a heavy caseload to each planner, so that:  1) a maximum amount of time can be spent on case processing, with a small allowance for downtime; and 2) the ebbs and flows of application submittals does not impact staffing levels.  In many ways, however, these high caseloads have the opposite of the intended effects. 

Solution: Decreasing caseloads will actually reduce turnaround times and increase throughput.   In addition, decreasing caseloads will have a major positive impact on morale.  Instead of discouraging downtime, the Department should encourage time spent