Steering Group #3--

Policies and Ordinances

Introduction

 

Steering Group III (Policies and Ordinances) is focusing on two major issue areas.  First of all, we are helping steer the Zoning Ordinance Reformatting Project whenever possible.  This includes reviewing documents, and having members of our Steering Group working on the team with the consultant.  Second of all, we have formed 6 subcommittees to tackle substantive issues that have been identified as “problem areas” for the ministerial process, as follows:

 

1.         Slopes/Grading/Drainage

2.         Big Houses

3.         Creek/Riparian Setbacks

4.         Tree Protection

5.         Building Height

6.         Viewshed/Design Matters

 

Each of the 6 subcommittees comprises people from Steering Group III and other staff and community members.  We are working to understand the issues and then find ways to help staff, applicants, and agents navigate through these issues during the ministerial process.  The Building Height subcomittees are still figuring out the best ways to address their issues.  The Viewshed/Design Matters subcommittee will not be starting its work until initial results are in from the other subcommittees.   The remaining four subcommittees have provided the attached reports on their initial progress. 

 

Slopes/Grading/Drainage is developing standards that conform to the comprehensive and community plan policies.  Applicants can choose to design their projects within the standards to receive a straightforward finding of policy consistency.  Big Houses is working to define the characteristics of a “big house”, where it is appropriate for them to be located, and what are the best ways to control the impacts that big houses have on the surrounding neighborhood, possibly involving BAR.   Creek/Riparian Setbacks pulled together the existing Flood Control, Environmental Health, and Comprehensive, Coastal Land Use, and Community Plan policies regarding creek and riparian setbacks, and compiled them into an easy to understand format with graphics and charts.  Tree Protection is working to create a user friendly interpretive guide for planners to use, a brochure to hand out to the public, and an “across-the-board” standard for determining the Critical Root Zone of trees.

 

We need to coordinate our efforts with all of the Steering Groups:  Steering Group 1 to let applicants and agents know about our products, and to incorporate them into the Website;  Steering Group 2 to coordinate our products into the new 4-tiered Ministerial system, Queue, and Decision Tree; Steering Group 4 to train staff to implement the changes at intake and project review.

 

 

 

 

Slopes/Grading/Drainage

Subcommittee

 

Members

Lisa Hosale, Greg Mohr, Brian Baca, Peggy Burbank, Brent Muchow,

Jennifer Trunk 

 

Chair/Convener—Lisa Hosale    568-2007

Lhosale@co.santa-barbara.ca.us

 

Goals

1.      Expedite the permit process for ministerial projects by creating a process allowing a rapid policy consistency determination (RPCD).

2.      Develop standards that conform to the comprehensive and community plan policies.  Applicants can then choose to design their project within the thresholds to receive a straightforward finding of policy consistency.  Alternatively, the can choose to develop outside the thresholds, which would then lead to a policy review.

3.      Set a target percentage of current applicant loads to evaluate the success of the new process.

 

Key Resources

Current:	Future:
County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element Grading Ordinance Brian Baca, P&D Geologist Jack Sewall, Architect Ron Sickafoose, Engineer	Peter Harmer, Grading Inspector AIA, AIP, ASCE, soil engineers, etc. Megan’s Analysis of permit statistics Potential customers

 

Interact primarily with: 

      Trees (contact person: Steve Goggia)

ü Big Houses (contact person: Don Nulty)

      Creek and Riparian Corridor Setbacks (contact person: Sid Goldstien)

ü Height Measurement (contact person: Noel Langle)

ü Viewshed and Design (contact person: John Watson)

 

Meeting Schedule

February:    Meet with Steering Group 2 (2/18/2004) re: process for implementing standards for RPCD within their new 3-tiered Ministerial proposal.

March:       Meet with other Steering Group 3 subgroups to coordinate standards, format and presentation.

April:          Public outreach to receive feedback from potential customers.

May:          Steering Group 3 presentation to BOS for approval of the RPCD process.

June:           Implementation in coordination with Steering Group #4: Training/Tools.

 

Process

The product of Steering Group 3 will be a set of Standards (lowest common denominators), similar to interpretive guidelines but not subject to discretion.  This will allow Rapid Policy Consistency Determinations (RPCD) to be made for ministerial permits.

Question:  Should the standards be vetted by the Planning Commission prior to going to the BOS?

1.      Coordinate with the Steering Groups for the Nature of the Interaction and Training Tools to determine appropriate way to get product out to the users (staff and public).

2.      Prepare diagrams, drawings, tables, definitions for final set of standards.

3.      Prepare list of resources and references for inclusion with the standards.

4.      Prepare an executive summary to preface the standards (purpose, intent, goals).

5.      Prepare presentation to Board of Supervisors

6.      Set up a monitoring mechanism for conducting periodic reviews of how the RPCD is working, from inception at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years and thereafter.

 

Achievements to Date

Draft Grading/Slope Standards

 

Milestones

Draft Grading/Slope Standards (achieved)

Completion of public outreach process

Adoption by Board

Implementation

Monitoring

 

Coordination Needs (what help do you need from other steering groups on February 18; what help do you think another steering group needs from you?)

 

Within Group 3:

All other subcommittees, but especially with Big Houses, Height Measurement and Viewshed and Design.

 

With other Steering Groups:

Firstly, with Steering Group 2 (Permit Process) on implementation and coordination of the RPCD process within their new Ministerial system. 

Subsequently with Steering Group 1 (Nature of the Interaction) and Steering Group 4 (Training/Tools) on training and presentation for staff and public.

 

With internal P&D efforts:

Queue

Decision Tree

 

Coordination Plan

 

1.         Steering Group 1 (Nature of the Interaction)

Communicating the goals/process of RPCD to applicants and agents.

Steering Group 1 (Nature of the Interaction)

Incorporating the RPCD process into the Website.

 

2.         Steering Group 2 (Permit Process)

Implementation/coordination of the RPCD process in the new tiered Ministerial system. 

            Steering Group 2 (Permit Process)  

Implementation/coordination of the RPCD process in the Queue. 

Steering Group 2 (Permit Process)

Incorporating the RPCD process into the Decision Tree.

 

3.         Steering Group 4 (Training/Tools)

Train staff on PRCD process (intake & project review).             

 

Big Houses

Subcommittee

 

Members

From Steering Group #3:  Don Nulty, Jenifer McNabb, John Gostovich, John Watson, Paul Anthony

 

Chair/Convener    Don Nulty

don@donnulty.com

 

Goals

1.  Determine possible thresholds that conform to the comprehensive and community plan policies. Applicants can then choose to design their project within the thresholds to receive a straightforward finding of policy consistency.  Alternatively, they can choose to develop outside the thresholds, which would then lead to a policy review. Threshold may be a single criterion or a set of criteria intended to recognize differences in local setting and topography.

 

2.   Enhance and extend the current issue paper, to provide more helpful guidance.

For example, where are big houses acceptable or, phrased another way, where does it not matter?  Issues to consider include visibility, size, screening, and neighborhood character.

 

3.  BAR Role. Discuss ways in which to use BAR to review potential big house applications. Related to this discussion is the proper role the Planning Department should play in big house applications (too much in past?). Should BAR be involved in the environmental review of Big Houses? If so, as lead decision-making body?

 

Key Resources

County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element

Megan’s Analysis of permit statistics

Rita Brite’s “Big House” policy paper

 

Interact primarily with: 

   Tree Protection Guidelines

üGrading/Slopes/Drainage

   Creek and Riparian Corridor Setbacks

üHeight Measurement

üViewshed and Design

 

Meeting Schedule

Try to meet every two weeks

 

Process

Approach A) Identify floor area threshold that defines a Big House. This threshold would then be used to govern subsequent County review (e.g., below threshold = true ministerial, or greater than threshold = BAR review or some other more intense review);

 

Approach B) Combination of factors or thresholds to determine level of scrutiny: Consideration of parcel characteristics (e.g., size, visibility, location, zoning, urban/rural), neighborhood characteristics, proposed house size, and other related issues. Then, for example, use a point system-type analysis to see which houses need additional review.

 

Related to the above thresholds for big houses is the question of who reviews and makes final decision of policy consistency. For example, does the BAR make final decision or planner?

 

Achievements to Date

Still trying to fully define goals and process to meet those goals.

 

Milestones

Outline of possible review process for Big Houses.

 

 

Coordination Needs (what help do you need from other steering groups on February 18; what help do you think another steering group needs from you?)

 

Steering Group 1 (Nature of the Interaction) &  John Watson

Communicating the goals/process of possible Big House policy to applicants and agents. 

Steering Group 1 (Training/Tools) & Jenifer McNab

Incorporating the Big House process into the Website.

 

Steering Group 2 (Permit Process) &   Don Nulty and/or John Gostovich

Implementation/coordination of the Big House process in the new tiered Ministerial system. 

            Steering Group 2 (Permit Process) & Paul Anthony

Implementation/coordination of the Big House process in the Queue. 

 

Steering Group 2 (Training/Tools) & Jenifer McNab

Incorporating the Big House process into the Decision Tree.

 

 

 

Creek and Riparian Setback

Subcommittee

 

Members

From Steering Group #3:  Diane Conn, Brian Baca, Sid Goldstien, and Chip Wullbrandt

Others:  Melissa Mooney; a planner from Dev Rev S.,

 

Chair/Convener:  Sid Goldstien

 

Goals

1.   Set thresholds that conform to the comprehensive and community plan policies.

Applicants can then choose to design their project within the thresholds to receive a straightforward finding of policy consistency.  Alternatively, the can choose to develop outside the thresholds, which would then lead to a policy review.

2.   Establish a minimum setback

3.   Establish an approach to making tradeoffs (e.g., the average setback must not be closer than x feet) so we have greater predictability of acceptance.

4.   Provide assured protection for pristine areas.

 

Key Resources

Flood Control

Environmental Health

P&D

Subdivision Committee (P&D)

Regional Water Quality Control Board

 

Interact primarily with: 

ü Trees

         Big Houses

ü Grading/Slopes/Drainage

         Height Measurement

 

Meeting Schedule

1/6/04        9:00 a.m. at Brian Baca’s office in SB

1/8/04        Subdivision Committee

1/13/04      Steering Group at Vista

 

Process

Define Creek

Review Existing Setback Regulations

Create Matrix

 

Milestones

Define Creek

Meet w/Subdivision Committee

 

Tree Protection Guidelines

Subcommittee

 

Members

From Steering Group #3:  Catherine Lee

 

Others:  Steve Goggia, David Swenk, Susan van Atta, etc. 

 

Chair/Convener—Steve Goggia 568-2067

Steve@co.santa-barbara.ca.us

 

Goals

1.  Set thresholds that conform to the comprehensive and community plan policies.

Applicants can then choose to design their project within the thresholds to receive a straightforward finding of policy consistency.  Alternatively, the can choose to develop outside the thresholds, which would then lead to a policy review.

 

Update as of 1.26.04:

 

The (8-10 member) working group that formed to rework P&D's Tree Protection  Guidelines has met three times.  The group has come to a consensus on several technical issues including the use of an "across the board" one foot out per inch of tree diameter at breast height in order to determine critical root zone.

 

David Swenk now has the task of revising the guidelines per the CRZ measurement method and re-packaging the guideline paper so that it is more simple to read and understand.  The new paper will have a preamble of sorts to explain why the trees are viewed as important to the community and hopefully provide more direction to all (the public, professionals and planners) regarding avoidance, encroachment minimization and replacement practices.

 

David's draft will be discussed among the group, within P&D and with a select group of outside stakeholders before "going public".  We'll be looking to create a user friendly interpretive guide for planners to use and a brochure for hand out to the public.  This guideline would be simple in format, short, concise, and sort of a road map to make a determination of consistency for tree protection. The brochure would be a well made info brochure for the public and available at the counter.

 

David hopes to finish up the draft soon.

 

 

 

 

 

*********************************