Planning and
Building Departments affect the growth of an area by the enforcement of zoning
and building regulations. Planning and building regulations that are too complex
and difficult to understand may deter people from building. In some cases,
people may build illegally as they perceive it too difficult to deal with these
government agencies. This illegal growth may pose safety hazards to occupants
and neighbors, as well as affecting the community as a whole. Revenue is also
lost as these structures are not assessed and people do not pay their share of
taxes on these illegal structures.
Planning
Departments within the county have been the subject of many Grand Jury
investigations.[1] Political
candidates have promised to reform the County Planning Department.[2] Some candidates have entered politics
because of problems they have had with planning and building departments.[3] Former planning department employees have started consulting
businesses to guide people through the complex permitting processes.[4]
Cities and
counties get their legal basis to create land use and building regulations
through police powers established by common law, the courts and the California
Constitution. The purpose of these regulations is to allow a city or county to
“protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents.”[5]
In order to be
“built to code,” permits are required before a building or structure is
“erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed,
converted or enlarged.”[6]
Building departments accept applications and plans. They review these documents
for compliance with building codes. Other departments and agencies review them
for compliance with their own codes (zoning, fire, environmental health, etc.).[7]
Some people say that planning and building departments provide conflicting
information and take too long to issue permits.[8]
Some planning officials say that some residents build illegally because of the
high costs for plans, architects, engineers, permit fees, taxes and the like.
This report
looks at the reasons people build illegal units, do work without permits and
contribute to illegal growth. It recommends measures that legislative bodies
and planning and building departments can take to encourage people to get
permits and to encourage legal growth.
The Grand Jury:
·
Interviewed
city and county staff.
·
Toured the
County Planning Department.
·
Investigated
citizen complaints.
·
Surveyed
the five building departments in the county.
Reviewed:
·
Previous
Grand Jury Reports.
·
2003 Santa
Cruz County Community Assessment Project Report.
·
Local news
articles.
·
Minutes, agendas,
correspondence and reports from Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
meetings.
·
Jurisdiction
Web sites.
·
Sections of
jurisdiction reports, such as the draft of the Santa Cruz County Housing
Element.
Permits are
required before doing any construction work.[9]
People have died
in fires in illegally built units. Fires and carbon monoxide poisoning can
result from improperly vented stoves and appliances.[10]
The Building Code requires smoke detectors. Lack of smoke
detection may contribute to fire related deaths.[11]
There were
99,744 housing units in Santa Cruz County in 2002.[12]
The median sales
price of homes in Santa Cruz County is continually rising. The median sales
price of a new home in 2001 was $527,000.[13]
In March of 2004
median price of a single-family home reached $603,125.[14]
Per capita
personal income dropped from $37,866 in 2000 to $36,865 in 2001. The median
family income has risen from $69,000 in 2002, to $74,600 in 2003.[15]
The 2000 U.S.
Census reported that 29,383 of the county's 247,530 people were at the poverty
level in Santa Cruz County.[16]
The 2003 Santa
Cruz Community Assessment Project reported the amount of money that survey respondents
said they spent on housing for 2003.
|
|
Caucasians |
Latinos |
All
respondents |
|
Spent over 50% of income on housing |
41% |
77% |
51% |
|
Spent over 75% of income on housing |
13% |
38% |
21% |
Table
1. Amount of take-home income spent on housing, 2003, Santa Cruz County, broken
down by race.
Source: 2003 Santa Cruz County
Assessment Project.
The figures were
also given regionally.
|
|
North County |
South County |
San Lorenzo
Valley |
|
Spent over 75% of income on housing |
18% |
26% |
13% |
Table
2. Amount of take-home income spent on housing, Santa Cruz County, 2003, broken
down by region.
Source:
2003 Santa Cruz County Assessment Project.
The high cost of
housing is perceived as a reason that people leave the area for more affordable
housing elsewhere.[17]
The county has
increased the number of planned housing units from 2,621 to 3,441 units (by 2007),
and has increased density from 17 to 25 units per acre in some areas in order
to get its housing plan approved and certified by the state. Santa Cruz County
has not complied with the state requirement to have a certified housing plan
for over ten years.[18]
A resident has used the argument that the county cannot enforce zoning codes
because it does not have a certified housing plan.[19]
People perceive
that complying with zoning and building codes in the county is difficult
because it is expensive and complex and because they get conflicting
information from planners and inspectors. Some people believe there has been a
large amount of illegal building in the county because of the high cost and
excessive complexity of acquiring permits.[20]
The county has
relaxed some regulations for second units, which resulted in the number of
applications increasing from 25 in a typical year to 48 in a six-month period.[21]
Some people
believe Santa Cruz County has a housing shortage and that houses are not
affordable. They say that causes people to leave the area in search of
affordable housing.[22]
County residents
have complained of several issues:
·
Long
waiting periods to acquire permits (in some cases years).
·
Constantly
changing rules.
·
Increasing
costs and fees.
·
Staff changes.
·
Lack of
accountability.[23]
The City of
Santa Cruz received similar criticism that its Planning Department continually
changes the rules. Critics say the department’s philosophy is “just say no.”[24]
Other residents have described staff as helpful, fair, prompt, professional and
said they were treated “humanely.”[25]
Some residents
say there is political influence involved with the permit process.[26]
A 2003 Grand Jury
report described pressure on the planning staff from elected officials.[27]
In June 2002,
the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors proposed recommendations to improve
the permit and planning process, such as making applicants aware of their
rights during the process. The Planning Department implemented a few of the
recommendations. It did not implement others, citing the following reasons:
·
The
complexity of the established process.
·
Legal
requirements.
·
State
mandates, such as environmental regulations.[28]
Streamlining processes
have been used in San Jose area planning departments. Some jurisdictions have
used a Total Quality Management (TQM)[29]
approach to reduce steps and shorten the time it takes to process permits.
These jurisdictions have taken a regional approach to code adoption and
processes, as well as Internet technical advantages.[30]
The Grand Jury
interviewed government officials and conducted surveys relating to building
permits and code enforcement. The results are summarized in the chart on the
opposite page.
1.
|
JURISDICTION and population |
Capitola 10,150 |
Santa Cruz 55,600 |
Scotts Valley 11,650 |
Watsonville 47,600 |
Santa Cruz County (unincorporated) 134,700 |
|
Number of building permits
issued last fiscal year |
359 |
1,593 |
373 |
1,176 |
3,794 |
|
Number of
residential permits |
269 |
1,250 (est.) |
307 |
981 |
Does not track in this manner. |
|
Number of
commercial permits |
90 |
343 (est.) |
66 |
195 |
Does not track in this manner. |
|
Average number of
days from permit application until issuance |
7 |
121 |
21 |
16.1 |
Does not track in this manner. |
|
Average number of
days for commercial permits |
45 |
102 |
45 |
20.5 |
Does not track in this manner. |
|
Fee to be paid * before
issuance of a building permit for a 1,500 sq. ft. house |
$19,252 |
$16,155 |
$42,045 |
$29,837 |
$25,998 (2,500 sq.ft. house, doesn’t include water, discretionary planning, soils/ geologic fees) |
|
Illegal units and
garage conversions discovered last fiscal year. |
2 |
92 |
4 |
259 |
320 (estimated) |
|
Number of staff in
Building Dept. |
2 |
6 |
2.25 |
9 |
22 |
|
Estimated # of
illegal units |
100+ |
1,000 to 5,000 |
20-30 |
8,000 |
Would not estimate. (“A lot”) |
Table
3. Survey of planning departments in Santa Cruz County, 2004.
Source: Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
2003-2004 Survey.
* See Appendix for detailed table
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES.
The
numbers representing process time for “Average number of days from permit
application until issuance” and “Average number of days for commercial permits”
do not accurately reflect overall performance. For example, the City of Santa
Cruz does not normally take 121 days to process permits. The average time for a
new dwelling, that is complete, accurately prepared and not requiring
discretionary review, is only about 15 to 20 days. What extends the average is
plans that require multiple rechecks or sit for long periods of time before
either revisions are submitted or the applicant finally picks up the permit.
The same is true for commercial permits.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
The County agrees with the finding insofar as
it refers to County operations. The County cannot comment on the accuracy of
the information provided for the cities.
As the data illustrates, the County Planning
Department processes and inspects over 50% of the building permits issued by
all jurisdictions within the entire county area. The County generally does not
track the average number of days to complete the permit process, because often
delays in the process are the direct result of the applicant not resubmitting
required information. Initial processing times are well within the range of
those described by the various cities.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY AGREES AND DISAGREES.
“Fees to be paid before issuance of a
1,500 sq. ft. house” “$29,837”
Partially agrees - The fee estimate as
shown includes a $10,270 affordable housing in-lieu fee. While this fee is
applicable to a single family home on an existing parcel of record, the vast
majority of the 981 residential permits were not subject to the fee as they
were part of larger subdivisions (6 or more homes) with inclusionary affordable
units, thus were not required to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fee.
“Number of staff in Building Dept.” “9”
Partially agrees - The nine staff identified
in the survey includes three permit center staff and two code enforcement
officers. The permit center staff
handles a multitude of issues including zoning, business license review and
engineering related functions. The Code Enforcement Officers address a variety
of issues that overlap building functions, but also include substantial
property maintenance issues. Since the survey was completed, the City hired a
civilian fire prevention position that is under Community Development.
“Estimated # of illegal units” “8,000”
Disagree - During the primary harvesting
time for strawberries and other row crops, it is likely that the City sees
upwards of 8,000 additional residents. Many of these residents crowd into
existing units, garages and storage buildings. We would estimate that the
actual number of illegal units is closer to 1,000-2,000.
They were also
asked what factors they believe contribute to people not getting permits. The
answers to that question and the findings of what jurisdictions believe about
themselves are listed below.
2. The city said it is diligent in
performing plan checking.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
3. The city said that many factors
contribute to the average time from application to issuance of permits.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
4. Specialized plan checks and engineering
plan checking are outsourced.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
5. The city cited several reasons for
problems and delays:
·
Applicants
do not provide adequate plans.
·
They do not
pick up and correct plans in a timely manner.
·
They do not
pick up approved permits when they are ready.
These
situations affected the city’s average number of days to issue permits.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
6. City officials said they stress
interpersonal service and receive compliments for good service.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
7. Decision-making is decentralized.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
8. The City Council has a hands-off approach
and lets staff do their jobs.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
9. Code enforcement is more reactive, unless
a violation presents itself to them.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES.
An exception is the Beach Flats target area, which is a pro-active enforcement area.
10. Staff said permits are not obtained
because:
· People are not informed one is needed.
· Other professionals say that permits are not needed.
· They are not affordable.
· People have no desire to obtain them.
· A project may not qualify for a permit to be built.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
PARTIALLY AGREES.
Another
possibility is that people also want to avoid the bureaucratic process.
11. The city has made it less restrictive and easier to build accessory dwelling units (Granny units).[31]
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
12. This city returned calls on the same day and delivered information to the Grand Jury within six days.
Response: City
of Scotts Valley AGREES.
13. Staff is reactive to code violation complaints.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
14. Staff said permits are not obtained because:
· The cost and difficulty in obtaining them.
·
Environmental regulations, such as those enforced by
State Fish and Game concerning endangered species like the Mt. Hermon June
Beetle.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
The
two reasons cited above are not exclusive of other reasons that permits are not
obtained. There are many other potential reasons why permits are not obtained.
Capitola
15. This city reports that its city councils have always stressed good customer service.
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
16. The city is primarily built out, so certain violations like weed abatement are not an issue.
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
17. This city said it is very efficient in issuing permits.
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Watsonville
18. This city says it is very customer-oriented.
Response: City of Watsonville
AGREES.
19. It issues “over-the-counter” permits for non-complicated residential and commercial additions ranging in size from 500 square feet up to 1,200 square feet, in 20 to 30 minutes. Staff does this with counter reviews on Mondays and Wednesdays.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY AGREES.
Since the survey was completed, as a result of budget constraints, the City has reduced over the counter reviews to Wednesday mornings only.
20. It is proactive in code enforcement. All of its inspectors issue stop work notices if they see work without permits. They issue citations for illegal garage conversions.
Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
21. It has a continuous improvement philosophy of “What can we do to make it better?”
Response: City of Watsonville
AGREES.
County of
Santa Cruz
22. The county said it is enforcing complex regulations.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
23. Conditions inherent to the unincorporated areas of the county such as sloping sites, geologic hazards and proximity to riparian corridors (like streams) make it more difficult to compare with a flat city lot. These factors lead to difficulties with people providing adequate plans and addressing these factors.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
Not only do difficult rural sites result in
difficulties for the public in submitting plans, but they often raise complex
issues for staff in the course of the plan review process.
24. The county does not track permits by residential or commercial, but uses other categories. The average time range from application for a permit until issuance is shown in Table 4 on the opposite page.
|
Type |
Number of days |
|
Minor
residential remodels and additions less than 500 sq. ft. |
24 |
|
Major
residential additions greater than 500 sq. ft. and commercial additions |
38 |
|
Single
family dwellings |
49 |
|
Commercial
tenant improvements |
35 |
|
Large commercial
and multi-unit residential projects |
70 |
Table 4.
Average length of time between permit application and issuance, County of Santa
Cruz
Source:
2003-2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Survey
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
The data in Table 4 represents the time
taken to complete the initial review of a permit, not the time for issuance.
25. County officials gave several reasons that permits are not obtained:
· Costs (plans, engineering, permit fees, impact fees, fire sprinklers, tax reassessment).
· Without fines and penalties, the financial incentive may outweigh any risks.
· Some projects are built illegally because they would not qualify for permits.
· There is a tradition of owner-built projects without permits, especially in rural areas.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
26. County code enforcement is complaint driven (reactive).
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES.
While code enforcement actions are generally
in response to public complaints, some are as a result of conditions observed
by various county staff, including those of the Planning Department.
These findings represent individual views from various jurisdictions. They are listed separately to protect the confidentiality of agencies interviewed.
27. Disability accessibility is required by law on new permits, but is not enforced by many jurisdictions.
Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES.
Conversely, Capitola rigorously enforces ADA
accessibility requirements.
Response: City
of Santa Cruz DISAGREES.
Most/all
jurisdictions enforce disability accessibility codes, some better than others.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
Disability accessibility regulations are
enforced within the unincorporated area and are taken very seriously. The
County is not in a position to evaluate how seriously other jurisdictions take
the requirements for access for persons with disabilities.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
DISAGREES.
Scotts Valley actively enforces disability
accessibility regulations with each building permit and requires improvements
to sites as required by State Law. All work
for ADA accessibility is required to be completed prior to signing off the
final permit.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
The City of Watsonville enforces both ADA
and Title 24 accessibility provisions as required by law.
28. Some officials said that more regulations slow growth.
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Generally, the more regulations, the more
time it takes to ensure project consistency with applicable regulations.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
PARTIALLY AGREES.
Many
new regulations do not adversely affect growth.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
The County cannot comment on whether some
officials may have said this. However, the County disagrees with the content of
the statement. The mere act of enacting new regulations does not in and of
itself slow growth. In the unincorporated area, in spite of adopting new land
use regulations over the years, the rate of new residential permits has been
steady for over ten years. Of course, it is certainly possible, depending on
the nature of land use regulations and how they are administered, that the
effect can be to slow down the review process for new development applications
and ultimately the rate of new development.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES.
The type of regulation that is in place may
or may not slow growth.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
There remains a fine balance between
protecting public health and safety while allowing for growth. Watsonville has
strived to find this balance. At times, what is perceived as “more” regulations
is actually a streamlining/change of regulations.
29. Some officials said that people do not like regulatory agencies.
Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY
AGREES.
Some people do not like regulatory agencies,
particularly if regulations impede need or desire of theirs. However, other
people do like regulatory agencies, as regulations can ensure public health and
safety and maintenance of community standards and values.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
PARTIALLY AGREES.
While most people would rather not have to deal with regulatory agencies, most understand that they are necessary. The problem lies in agencies that make the process overly difficult and expensive.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES.
The County cannot speak to the accuracy of
this very general statement. Nevertheless, generally speaking, people often do not like
regulatory agencies when they need permission for their own actions, but are
supportive of the agencies when they are restricting what their neighbors can
do.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
However, there are some people who have been
very satisfied with their experiences working with local government.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
There are many people in
Watsonville who appreciate the work of the Department in protecting their place
of residence and many times their principal investment. We have customers who
do not like to pay fees or to be subject to review by our inspectors; this is
the nature of the department.
30. Staff said it performs in a professional manner.
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
The County requires employees to act in a
professional manner and takes appropriate actions in those limited instances
when staff do not comply with County standards of conduct.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
Response: City of Watsonville
AGREES.
31. Loss of businesses is an issue in the City and County of Santa Cruz as companies move to areas where labor and housing are cheaper.
Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY
AGREES.
Certain types of companies have moved,
however other companies and uses continue to be established and to thrive in
Santa Cruz.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
The County is concerned about the potential
for businesses to relocate to areas with lower housing and labor costs. More
likely, our high cost housing area has served to discourage businesses from
relocating to our area.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
Response: City of Watsonville CANNOT
RESPOND.
This finding was not
directed to Watsonville.
32. Some officials said the county takes too long to issue permits.
Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY
AGREES.
The County does seem to
take longer than other jurisdictions to issue permits, however it is difficult
to conclude that it takes “too long” because every project is different with
regard to the constraints and regulations that apply. Lacking firsthand
knowledge, it is difficult to generalize.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz CANNOT RESPOND.
The City of Santa Cruz is in no position to comment on this suggestion.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES.
The department is working
to improve the time used for processing discretionary permits, and current
schedules reflect the complexity of development in the unincorporated area.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES.
This response applies to
the County of Santa Cruz.
Response:
City of Watsonville CANNOT RESPOND.
This
finding was not directed to Watsonville.
33. Some officials said that planning and building employees leave the county's jurisdiction to work elsewhere because the county does not provide good customer service.
Response: Santa
Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES.
The Planning Department
conducts informal exit interviews when employees depart. While there have been
issues about workload issues and salaries expressed through that process, to
our knowledge no one has left due to the county’s performance relative to
customer service.
34. It was reported that there is not enough staff, regular or specialized, to address permit applications in a timely manner, especially during times of increased permit activity. Some projects “fall through the cracks.”
Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY
AGREES.
The City of Capitola, with only one
full-time planner responsible for permits, is understaffed in the Community
Development Department. However, contract staff is used during times of increased
permit activity, and projects do not fall through the cracks.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
PARTIALLY AGREES.
In
the City of Santa Cruz this is the rare exception rather than the rule.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
Clearly over the years, as a result of a
number of issues, there have been delays in filling vacancies. In some cases,
those staff shortages have resulted in longer processing times. However, we are
not aware of applications “falling between the cracks.” The County’s extensive
computer tracking systems are designed to ensure that all applications are
appropriately processed.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
DISAGREES.
While there are times of higher levels of
permit activity, when this occurs, it can take longer to obtain a permit.
However, projects do not “fall through the cracks” and we actively respond to
customers on a regular basis. We employ a “first come, first served” policy.
The time to process permits does bear a strong relationship to the completeness
and accuracy of the application submitted.
Response: City of Watsonville
AGREES.
Budget constraints will
always impact these functions. It is also difficult to hire and retain
qualified individuals given the high cost of housing.
35. Some staff from different jurisdictions cooperate to solve problems, but some do not. There has been no regional approach to solutions, as has occurred with jurisdictions in the San Jose area.
Response: City of Capitola
DISAGREES.
Staff do cooperate when there is need and
opportunity to cooperate; such as with the Housing Element update process, and
transportation planning, through the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments, and the Regional Transportation Commission. Fundamentally,
however, different jurisdictions are each political entities, and
decision-making processes in the different jurisdictions can sometimes reflect
the different values or priorities of that jurisdiction.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
DISAGREES.
Staff
meets regularly with other Monterey Bay agencies to develop regional
consistency.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
While there is always room for greater
inter-jurisdictional cooperation, there is adequate coordination between the
jurisdictions on most critical land use issues. There are currently regional
discussions regarding transportation issues. The water and land use agencies
interact on a regular basis. And, the issue of affordable housing approaches is
the most common topic of discussion between the local planning agencies. As
well, in the area of land use regulations, local jurisdictions often interact
on approaches for designing land use regulations.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
DISAGREES.
We are actively cooperating with many
jurisdictions on a variety of issues.
Response: City of Watsonville
DISAGREES.
The City of Watsonville has no direct
knowledge of a lack of cooperation by jurisdictions. The lack of staffing
identified in finding 34 has significantly limited our ability to work on the
larger picture issue of regional consistency. Our customer base is made up of
primarily local builders and homeowners that see little benefit of having
regulations consistent with the City of Santa Cruz as an example; they much
prefer getting their project completed in a timely manner.
36. Santa Cruz County is an expensive place to live compared to median home prices in most other areas.
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
Response: City of Watsonville
AGREES.
37. A comparison of some jobs indicates that Santa Cruz County pays less than other jurisdictions and the private sector:
Planner (mid-level, September 2002)
· Santa Cruz County $53,184
· City of Santa Cruz $59,964
· Private sector $83,200
· San Mateo County $58,998
· Santa Clara County $62,007
·
Monterey County $59,112[32]
Response:
City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
It is necessary to compare the job duties
and required skill and experience level of various positions to ensure an
“apples to apples” comparison; however it does appear that Santa Cruz County
mid-level planner salaries are lower than many other jurisdictions.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
The County is unable to ascertain the source
of the exact numbers cited in the Grand Jury report, but they appear to
generally indicate the relative pay of the different jurisdictions in 2002.
Since that time, the County has undertaken some equity adjustments with the
intention of closing that gap.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES.
We
have not conducted a salary survey to validate the finding.
Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
The City of Watsonville mid
level salary for Associate Planner (commensurate with referenced positions)
pays approximately $48,000 annually or almost $5,000 less than that noted for
Santa Cruz County. Benefits are also a factor and really should be part of the
equation when comparing positions.
38. Twenty-seven cities and two counties in the San Jose area use a Total Quality Management approach by adopting uniform building codes and forms to improve the permit process.[33]
Response: City of Capitola CANNOT
RESPOND.
The City of Capitola has no knowledge of
that specific arrangement.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The
City of Santa Cruz participates in this process.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND.
The County is not in a position to agree or
disagree with this finding. While there
was a concerted effort many years ago to coordinate business-related permits
among Santa Clara communities, we are not currently aware of the status of that
effort.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES.
We participated in the development of the
“Smart Building Permit” process in the San Jose area. After participation we
found that the issues were closely associated with the large computer
corporations that had significant issues with privacy for their business
product and large architectural firms working with multiple jurisdictions. The
application of this system to our area would most likely not address
application processing issues here. We deal more with individual property
owners, rather than large corporations and large architectural firms. We agree
there can be merit in standardizing systems within our region, however.
Response: City of Watsonville
AGREES.
We are aware of the
program, but cannot confirm the exact number of jurisdictions employing TQM.
39. Citizens have organized to have more control over the planning process.[34]
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Citizen’s groups are an important part of the land use planning process, and decision-makers value the participation of citizen’s groups.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
PARTIALLY AGREES.
This
“organization” is off base, as is the challenge to “redtag.”
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
We are not aware of any citizen groups
organized to have “more control over the planning process.” Rather, what we
have seen, off and on over the years, are attempts to organize those who have
been cited for illegal construction activities in an attempt to simplify what
they need to do to justify their illegal construction.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
We are aware of some groups who have formed
to improve systems at the County of Santa Cruz and City of Santa Cruz. We
recently corresponded with one particular group to offer to meet and discuss
any issues related with Scotts Valley. They responded that they currently had
no issues with Scotts Valley.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
In the City of Watsonville,
we include the community and encourage public involvement in the process from
the beginning. Rarely have we been at a
point where the community has been forced to organize because there was no
other option provided.
40. Currently, there are no politically independent advocates or citizen boards available that are specific to planning and building issues and complaints (except for the Civil Grand Jury, which can only make recommendations in a report). Legislators appoint current Planning Commissions. Legislators appoint Building and Fire Boards of review, only address code interpretation, and seldom if ever meet.[35]
Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY
AGREES.
Although legislators appoint Planning
Commissions, there are varying degrees of how “politicized” Planning
Commissions become. Some Planning
Commissions try to focus on quality land use decisions and consistent
interpretation and application of codes, and thus minimize politics in
planning.
Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
The County disagrees with this finding and
believes that the current situation is appropriate. Citizens are an active part
of the public hearing process and participation is vigorous.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
AGREES.
The City agrees with this finding, but also
wishes to point out that our process is continually improved and modified in
response to citizen comments. As a smaller jurisdiction, Scotts Valley is very
accessible to its citizens and can respond to process issues in a timely
manner.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
The City of Watsonville believes in “home
rule” and that the residents and voters should have the right to select who and
how they are represented and that another board would only increase delays in
the development process. The Board of Appeals has, by building code, a very
specific role and should be needed seldomly if the building official and staff
perform their duties.
41. Jurisdictions do not track performance in such a way that they can use it to compare themselves to other jurisdictions. They do not belong to performance comparison organizations, such as The International City/County Management Association (ICMA).
Response: City of Capitola AGREES.
Response: City of Santa Cruz
PARTIALLY AGREES.
The City of Santa Cruz is able to track its own performance. However, there is not sufficient data from other agencies to compare to.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
The issues from one jurisdiction to another are quite different and attempts to establish common methods to track and compare performance are a challenge. That is not to say that a local jurisdiction should not clearly define its own expectations of its operations and measure performance against those goals and benchmark expectations to the extent possible.
Response: City of Scotts Valley
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
We do agree that we do not compare our
performance to other jurisdictions, as that information is not readily
available to the City of Scotts Valley. However, in Scotts Valley, reports are
published on a regular basis to track applications and status of applications.
We also are evaluating staff performance by tracking time spent on each
particular project. We strongly adhere to the timelines set by the Permit
Streamlining Act.
Response: City of Watsonville
PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
The City of Watsonville has
found little benefit in utilizing comparison of performance given the
uniqueness of each community and the stakeholder groups. The City Manager is a
member of ICMA.
42. The County Planning Department reviews zoning sections of the County Code. It presented the Board of Supervisors with suggested changes to the County Code to:
· Make it clearer.
·
Give clearer definitions.
· Correct grammatical and spelling errors.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
That action was only the first of many actions
that will be taken to simplify both the formal regulations and administrative
processes.
43. The County Board of Supervisors has made previous attempts to improve the permit process.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
Over the years the Board of Supervisors has
acted to encourage streamlining of the permit processes while not sacrificing
the ability to properly review and condition projects. The Board will continue
that effort.
44. The Assessor’s Office is usually notified after a permit for a structure is obtained, but not when it is discovered by a Code Enforcement action. An illegal structure can exist for years, and then be demolished when found out, but without incurring any tax liability.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors DISAGREES.
The Planning Department and Assessor, as
part of the new land use tracking system, are developing a system that will
allow for such referrals.
45. All California counties must produce Housing Elements. A Housing Element is a plan that discusses how the county will accommodate its fair share of growth. The fair share of growth is set by the state. The county has not had a state-certified Housing Element for 10 years. Its current proposed Housing Element is undergoing corrections and clarifications requested by the State of California.
Response: Santa Cruz County Board of
Supervisors AGREES.
The County remains committed to receiving certification of its Housing
Element.
1. The permitting processes are often too
slow, too complex and too costly. Making the system simpler, cheaper and faster
could encourage more people to comply. Amnesty programs could help. More people
in compliance would mean more people are paying taxes and revenues would increase.
2. Some officials and staff have tried, and
continue to try to improve the system.
3. A Total Quality Management approach could
benefit all jurisdictions.
4. Citizens would like more influence over
how the Planning and Building Departments operate.
5. If Planning and Building Departments
notified the Assessor’s Office of illegal construction as soon as it is
discovered, the Assessor might be able to determine a value for taxes.
6. Processing may get bogged down in some
specialized areas of review. A qualified independent review board could help by
confirming or refining staff determinations.
7. Applicants need an independent advocate,
not politically tied to a legislative body, and an independent review board,
with the authority to make staff act with due diligence and to hear complaints
and appeals.
8. Some jurisdictions do not have enough
employees, regular or specialized, to perform their duties expediently.
9. There is no regional approach to
permitting, such as that which has been successful in the San Jose area.
10. Jurisdictions have varied departmental
performance measures.
11. Scotts Valley responded promptly,
professionally and courteously. It had the shortest response time of all the
jurisdictions investigated.
12. Capitola had a quick turn around time for
residential reviews.
13. Watsonville provides over the counter
plan reviews, a friendly customer service orientation and pro-business
attitude.
14. The City of Santa Cruz stresses
interpersonal service and provides service-oriented training to staff.
15. Some county staff return phone calls
promptly and have a professional courteous manner.
16. Customer service was also influenced by
city councils that stressed its importance, and by councils that did not
interfere with staff operations and decisions.
17. People do not like planning and building
departments because of their regulatory functions. In spite of public
perceptions, in most cases staff operates in a professional manner.
18. County planning’s attempt to simplify the
County Code is a good step toward improving the system.
19. After more than a decade, the county is
close to achieving a state certified Housing Element.
20. County Planning has lost staff because
they can make more money elsewhere and it is so expensive to live here.
21. The City of Santa Cruz has taken a
positive step toward helping people and housing, by making it less restrictive
and less expensive to build Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny units).
22. Owners and tenants of illegal units enjoy
all of the benefits of a tax-paid infrastructure, such as parks, schools, law
enforcement and libraries, but do not pay their share of taxes. Taxpayers
provide the money for benefits that everyone enjoys.
1. All jurisdictions should commit
themselves to making the permitting processes faster, easier and cheaper.
Legislative bodies should consider amnesty programs, reduction in fees,
reducing restrictions and streamlining permit processes in order to encourage
people to build legally and to legalize existing illegal structures.
Response:
City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
It must be remembered that
the development permitting process is foremost a regulatory process. The goal
of the regulatory intent should be the first priority, then taking the steps
necessary to make the process faster, easier and cheaper. The City of Capitola
is undertaking an effort to clarify its zoning ordinance, has hired contract
staff to ensure timely processing of applications, and charges fees based on
actual cost recovery for the project, such that applicants are refunded permit
fees if less staff time than anticipated is taken.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The recommendation has been implemented.
The City of Santa Cruz continuously strives to make the permitting process faster
and easier by providing personal service and advice, application and
educational materials, and outsourced plan checking services at no additional
expense. The City’s fee rates for permitting are currently among the lowest in
the County. Illegal construction in the City usually involves the creation of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) through conversion of garages or accessory
structures without the benefit of permits. To encourage the legal development
of ADUs, the City has enacted Zoning Ordinance changes that relax on-site
covered parking requirements and make most ADU applications approvable over the
counter, thereby avoiding the substantial cost of discretionary use permits.
Additionally, the City developed prototype designs and a “how to” handbook for
homeowners interested in developing ADUs. The City Council chose to take this
proactive approach of facilitating legal development rather than an amnesty
program, which implies an aggressive code enforcement effort, due to the lack
of staff resources to support an intensive abatement program.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
This recommendation is
being implemented as part of an overall review of the current land use
regulations which will take place over the next several years. The first phase
of that process, beginning to correct code inconsistencies and errors, has
already begun by the Board of Supervisors. As well, the Planning Department is
currently reviewing its administrative processes with the intention of
simplifying requirements and streamlining processes, where appropriate.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
The recommendation has
already been implemented. Scotts Valley has adopted amnesty programs for
correcting illegal construction, reduced fees for correcting illegal second
dwelling units and for tree removal permits and amended regulations to
streamline permit processes.
Response:
City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES.
This recommendation
requires further analysis. We have implemented the streamlining of processes. We remain concerned that amnesty programs
only encourage more illegal construction and are not sustainable without
modifications at the State level on Title 24 energy codes and other similar
codes. The City has approached local
legislators to carry legislation to address these issues and we will continue
to do so.
2. The legislative bodies of the cities and
county, and the management of their respective Planning and Building
Departments should consider policies of Total Quality Management (TQM) to
promote teamwork of employees and the public, and continuous improvement of the
system. Training and education of employees should emphasize customer service.
Response:
City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
TQM has advantages and disadvantages.
Certainly effective management systems should be in place to increase the
delivery of services in every department.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The recommendation has been
implemented. The City of Santa Cruz has for years fostered in its employees a
culture of customer service and teamwork, which are at the heart of the Total
Quality Management concept and similar tools of organizational management. The
Department of Planning and Community Development periodically conducts department-wide
training emphasizing team building and customer service.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
This recommendation is
being implemented as part of an overall review of the current land use regulations
that will take place over the next several years. The first phase of that
process, beginning to correct code inconsistencies and errors, has already
begun by the Board of Supervisors. As well, the Planning Department is
currently reviewing its administrative processes with the intention of
simplifying requirements and streamlining processes, where appropriate.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
The City has implemented
processes to promote teamwork, improve morale, and to ensure quality communication
and responsiveness to our customers. Customer service is emphasized on a daily
basis and staff members are evaluated on the basis of their relationships with
customers, their ability to process applications in a timely manner, and their
relationships with co-workers.
Response:
City of Watsonville AGREES.
This recommendation has
been implemented.
3. The legislative bodies of the cities and
county should appoint public boards to review current ordinances and department
procedures in order to make recommendations for improvement. The boards should
be composed of individuals with a variety of interests throughout the county,
to provide fair and balanced assessments and recommendations for improvement
and implementation. Examples might include:
·
One member
from a real estate group.
·
One member
from an environmental group.
·
One member
from a builders group.
·
One member
from a public housing group.
Response:
City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
The
City of Capitola is currently conducting public hearings to update and clarify
its zoning ordinance. Members of the public are welcome to attend, and outreach
to the design and building community has occurred. Whether a public board as
described above is needed should be a decision of each jurisdiction, based upon
the significance of the need to improve current ordinances and procedures.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES.
The recommendation will not be
implemented, because it is not warranted. The City of Santa Cruz already has
appointed boards in place to deal with citizen complaints and appeals—the
Planning Commission and the Board of Building Appeals. Our staff and management
team is usually effective in solving problems of individual customers.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES.
This
recommendation will not be implemented.
It is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission to review the current county ordinances. The Planning Director is
responsible for making appropriate recommendations relative to changes to those
ordinances. The Planning Director is currently pursuing an aggressive strategy
to address the deficiencies of the department’s administrative systems. As part
of that process, staff is expected to consult with various involved community
groups.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES.
We
have an alternative process already in place for property and business owners
to address the City to consider code/process amendments. This process allows
for direct access to the City Council to request the initiation of a Code
amendment or change in policy or procedure. The City has been successful in
making changes to address issues where the Code was not adequate or too
cumbersome. Staff is also encouraged to bring forward Codes, policies or
processes that are not working so that they can be improved. We do not believe
that such a board could be as effective as our current process.
Response:
City of Watsonville DISAGREES.
This
will not be implemented in this form. The City has a Planning Commission made
up of citizens. The City Council establishes working groups and committees.
Overall, the City works well with community members and stakeholder groups.
These actions will continue on an “as needed” basis and in response to
community demands.
4. The Board of Supervisors should appoint a
qualified board of appeal and review for geologic approval, so the county
geologist’s decisions may be reviewed.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES.
This
recommendation will not be implemented. The County has been presented no
information (including in the Grand Jury Report) to indicate that there is a
problem or to justify the recommendation.
5. The legislative bodies should appoint an
ombudsman to act as an advocate for the public, and a review board to hear
complaints and render authoritative decisions concerning planning and building
issues.
Response:
City of Capitola DISAGREES.
Department
Directors, City Managers, Planning Commissions, and City Councils presently
carry out this function for the City of Capitola.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES.
The
recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not warranted. As noted
in the response to Recommendation 3 above, staff is usually effective in
solving our customers’ problems, and review boards already exist to hear
complaints and appeals.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES.
The
City has already implemented an alternative form of ombudsman process. We have
two existing appeals boards to address building and code enforcement issues,
and we offer appeals to planning issues to the Planning Commission. We do agree
that these boards are not often used for such issues, but given the low volume
of code enforcement issues and the ability for staff to work out issues with
applicants in an independent fashion, there is not a volume of problems
occurring to warrant establishment of an ombudsman position. Also, the
Community Development Director and City Manager serve in a quasi-ombudsman
role. If applicants are having problems, they can approach the Community
Development Director and City Manager to have their issues addressed.
Response:
City of Watsonville PARTIALLY DISAGREES.
This recommendation
requires further analysis. City staff has made a preliminary assessment of the
concept. However, budget constraints, other priorities and general logistical
concerns have delayed any form of implementation. Given current budget
constraints, it is unlikely that this will be implemented.
6. Planning and Building Departments should
notify the County Assessor’s Office when illegal units and structures are
discovered, so they may be assessed.
Response:
City of Capitola AGREES.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The recommendation has been implemented. Staff advises the County Assessor’s Office upon sending a Notice of Violation to a property owner and also provides to the Assessor’s Office a copy of the building official’s Notice and Order detailing illegal conditions and activities.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
This
recommendation is being implemented. The Planning Department and Assessor, as
part of the new land use tracking system, will develop a system that will allow
for such referrals.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
The
City has implemented a process to forward copies of permits that result from
our code enforcement process to the Assessor.
Response:
City of Watsonville DISAGREES.
This recommendation will
not be implemented. Once the City is aware of the illegal construction, we are
obligated to abate the problem. The Assessor’s Office receives notice of
demolition and building permits so as to maintain their records. The act of
assessing individuals for illegal construction creates an inherent conflict
with enforcement. One County government entity acknowledges and taxes while the
City cites and abates it. The Assessor’s Office should report illegal
construction to the City. Furthermore, Assessor’s records should be available
for public review as a public record without owner consent for better
disclosure and accountability.
7. During times of excessive permit activity
which result in delays and overburdens staff, jurisdictions should allow applicants
to use an approved private sector specialist, such as an engineer or geologist,
to perform plan checking in order to expedite the permit process.
Response:
City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
The
City of Capitola has contracted with a permit planner who is assigned
“overflow” projects, at the discretion of the Community Development Director,
which is cost-neutral to the applicant. The Building Department does use
outside plan checkers for certain projects. Capitola is not generally
considered to be slow in processing planning and building permits.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The
recommendation has been implemented. For the past 15 years the City of Santa
Cruz has employed the services of an outside plan-checking agency, which has
the staffing and breadth of professional expertise to handle fluctuations in
workload and complex projects.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES.
This
recommendation is being implemented, but in a different fashion than that suggested
by the Grand Jury. While the Grand Jury’s concerns regarding reasonable
processing times are appropriate, we do not believe that transferring the
County’s legal responsibilities to private companies will best solve this
problem, and could expose the County to unnecessary liability. Instead, the
County is exploring alternative means to staff for predictable seasonal
workload peaks.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
The
City has already implemented this recommendation. We have a system for outside
planning and building services. However, it is important to note that
contracting out such services requires notice to unions if it is related to
particular bargaining units. The notice process can some times deflate the
benefit of using an outside service.
Response:
City of Watsonville AGREES.
The
City has implemented this recommendation.
8. All of the jurisdictions in the county
should take a regional approach to creating regional standards for
applications, permitting, inspections, etc. as has been accomplished in San
Jose area jurisdictions. This could streamline processes and provide uniformity
and fairness.
Response: City
of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
There
may be some areas where uniformity could be of benefit to jurisdictions and to applicants.
However, different circumstances and different regulations will likely result
in continued need for variation of process.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The recommendation has been implemented
by the City of Santa Cruz which, along with the City of Capitola, has
participated actively in regional efforts of local building officials to
standardize methodology for the implementation of codes. These are joint
efforts of the Monterey Bay, Peninsula, and East Bay Chapters of the
International Code Council. Unfortunately, building officials of the other
jurisdictions in Santa Cruz County, including the County, do not regularly
participate in these activities.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES.
This
recommendation will not be implemented. While the standard approach method for
industrial tenant improvements may have been successful in Santa Clara County,
their issues are considerably different than in Santa Cruz County. We believe
that the most important issues for Santa Cruz County residents and business
owners are clear regulations that are consistently enforced by a staff with a
strong customer orientation. We believe that efforts are underway in the
Planning Department to make major strides to meet those goals in the next
several years.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES.
The
City would have to indicate that we could not implement such a system at this
time. The City is interested in implementing such a program, and would be happy
to participate in and work on developing uniform systems. At this time,
however, our staffing levels and budget would not allow us to be in charge of
spearheading such an effort and we cannot provide a timeline for setting up
such a process.
Response:
City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES.
This
recommendation has not yet been implemented. We agree that this regional
process should occur. We believe that, at minimum, the Monterey County
jurisdictions should also be included. We will participate in the process when
initiated.
9. Uniform departmental performance measures
should be established and maintained so a jurisdiction can set goals and gauge
how well it is doing.
Response:
City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES.
With
a staff of three planners for all permits, planning and
redevelopment/affordable housing, there is not really any “overlap” in duties
for the Capitola planning positions, so “uniform” performance measures for the
planners to compare themselves to each other are not relevant here, but could
be useful elsewhere.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES.
The
recommendation will not be implemented, because it is not reasonable.
Performance measures would need to relate to the nature, extent, and complexity
of the workload, which varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
This
recommendation is currently being implemented. As described earlier, the
department is going through a careful evaluation of its procedures and
regulations. As part of that process, prior performance goals are being
reevaluated and expanded. It is anticipated that these changes will be phased
in over the next several years.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
We
have already implemented such a system; see our response to Recommendation No.
2.
Response:
City of Watsonville AGREES.
The City has implemented
this recommendation. We will continue to strive to improve.
10. The county should continually improve its
processes.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
This
recommendation is currently being implemented, as has been described above.
11. The county should take measures to retain
good, hardworking staff.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
This
recommendation is currently being implemented, both as has been described
earlier and through salary equity actions previously taken by the Board of
Supervisors.
12. The Board of Supervisors should be
commended for trying to make the county planning processes better.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
The
Board appreciates the Grand Jury’s recognition of its efforts.
13. The City Councils of Capitola, Santa
Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville should be commended for conveying the
importance of customer service to city staff, and allowing staff to make
decisions without interference.
Response:
City of Capitola AGREES.
Recognizing
that as the Council exercises its legal authority over planning and development
matters, such action does not constitute interference.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The
recommendation has been implemented.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors CANNOT RESPOND.
This recommendation does not apply to the County.
Response: City of Watsonville AGREES.
The
City has implemented this recommendation. We appreciate the acknowledgement.
14. The staff of all jurisdictions should be
commended for providing professional services to customers who may dislike them
because of the regulatory nature of their jobs.
Response:
City of Capitola AGREES.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The
recommendation has been implemented.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
The
Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the
difficulty of regulating land use activities in this county.
Response:
City of Scotts Valley AGREES.
This recommendation does not appear to
require any implementation. Thank you for the comment.
15. The County Planning Department should be
commended for trying to correct typographical errors, better define terms and
make things clearer in the County Code. They should continue to do this,
heeding the input of the public.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
The Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the Planning Department’s efforts to simplify the codes.
16. The County Planning Department staff
should be commended for its hard work on the Santa Cruz County Housing Element.
Response:
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
The
Board of Supervisors appreciates and shares the Grand Jury’s recognition of the
Planning Department’s efforts to obtain certification of the Housing Element.
17. The City of Santa Cruz should be
commended for making the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny
units) less restrictive.
Response:
City of Santa Cruz AGREES.
The
recommendation has been implemented.
18. People who do the hard work of getting
permits to make their communities safe and legal, thereby preserving the value
of their neighborhoods and paying their share of taxes resulting from getting
permits, should be commended.
|
Entity |
Findings |
Recommendations |
Respond Within |
|
Capitola City Council |
1, 15 - 17, 27 - 32, 34 - 41 |
1 - 3, 5 - 9, 13, 14 |
90 days (September 30, 2004) |
|
Santa Cruz City Council |
1 - 11, 27 - 32, 34 - 41 |
1 - 3, 5 - 9, 13, 14, 17 |
90 days (September 30, 2004) |
|
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors |
1, 22 - 45 |
1 - 4, 6 - 16 |
90 days (September 30, 2004) |
|
Scotts Valley City Council |
1, 12 - 14, 27 - 32, 34 - 41 |
1 - 3, 5 - 9, 14 |
90 days (September 30, 2004) |
|
Watsonville City Council |
1, 18 - 21, 27 - 32, 34 - 41 |
1 - 3, 5 - 9, 13 |
90 days (September 30, 2004) |
APPENDIX
A.
Comparison of Various Building Permit Fees
By Jurisdiction
B. Code
Enforcement Survey
Jurisdiction
C. Building Department
Survey
D. Code Enforcement Survey
Comparison of Various Building Permit
Fees
By
Jurisdiction
|
Jurisdiction |
Capitola |
Santa Cruz |
Scotts Valley |
Watsonville |
County of Santa Cruz |
|
Building Plan Check |
2,061 |
893 |
864 |
788 |
--- |
|
Planning Plan Check |
634 |
761 |
167 |
250 |
246 |
|
Building Permit |
3,171 |
1,375 |
(est.)2500 |
1,900 |
5,796 |
|
Fire |
--- |
248 |
225 |
75 |
750 |
|
Parks and Rec. |
--- |
4,500 |
6,297 |
2,001 |
3,000 |
|
Water |
5,856 |
3,356 |
16,702 |
2,820 |
not incl.36 |
|
Sewer fee |
4,500 |
1,200 |
5,425 |
1,343 |
3,000 |
|
Traffic Impact |
0 |
0 |
3,546 |
1,820 |
4,350 |
|
School fee |
3,000 |
2,340 |
4,650 |
5,700 |
5,125 |
|
Affordable Housing |
--- |
--- |
--- |
10,270 |
--- |
|
Discretionary Planning |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
not incl.37 |
|
Soil/Geologic fees |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
not incl.38 |
|
Other fees |
30 |
1,482 |
1,669 |
2,871 |
3,731 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
$ 19,252 |
$16,155 |
$ 42,045 |
$ 29,838 |
$ 25,998 |
Code Enforcement Survey
Jurisdiction
1. How many cases were opened in the last fiscal year?
2. How many cases were closed in the last fiscal year?
3. How many open cases are there currently?
4. How many illegal dwelling or garage conversions were there in the last fiscal year?
5. How many work without permit cases were there in the last fiscal year?
6. What is the average length of time to start an investigation once the complaint is first received?
7. What is the average length of time to get compliance once a complaint is first received?
8. How many Code Enforcement staff are there?
9. What type of complaints does Code Enforcement handle?
10. How many illegal units do you suspect are in the community?
11. What percentage do you think you find?
12. Why do you think people do not get permits?
Building Department Survey
1. How many building permits were issued during the last fiscal year?
Residential Commercial Total
2. How many staff members are in the Building Department?
3. What are the average number of days once a permit is applied for,
until the permit is issued?
Residential _________Commercial________Combined average________
If the department does not track these averages, take a random sampling of
at least ten permits. Total the number of days from date applied for until date
issued. Divide that number by the number of permits sampled to arrive at an
average.
4. What are the average number of days to get a plan change, from first day applied for, until issued?
Residential _________Commercial________Combined average_________
If the department does not track these averages, use the same formula as above to arrive at an average.
5. How were the averages arrived at?
Average of total permits Random sampling
6. List all of the fees required in order to be issued a permit for a residential dwelling that is 1500 square feet, type V, wood frame, good construction.
Plan Check fee___________________
Permit fee ___________________
Traffic Impact ___________________
School Impact ___________________
Water fee ___________________
Sewer fee
(or septic system)_________________
Other fees (list)
__________ ___________________
__________ ___________________
__________ ___________________
__________ ___________________
__________ ___________________
Total ___________________
Code Enforcement Survey
1. Were you aware that you may have been committing a violation?
Yes No Wasn’t sure
2. How do you think your violation was found out?
Neighbor Building Inspector Code Enforcement Officer Other
3. How were you told to correct the violation?
Verbally Correction Notice By phone By Mail In person
4. Did the person dealing with you act in a professional manner?
Yes No Sometimes
5. Did you receive a citation and fine?
Yes No
6. Did you think the citation was fair?
Yes No
7. Do you think the law was fair?
Yes No
8. Why didn’t you get a permit? (maybe more than one answer)
Too hard to deal with the Building Dept. Planning Dept. Other Depts.________
Didn’t think it would be allowed Didn’t want my taxes to go up
Thought the fees were too high Don’t like dealing with government
It would take too long Didn’t think they would let me do what I want
Other________________________________________________
9. How would you describe the customer service from the departments you had to deal with?
Great Very good Good Not so good Poor/ bad
10. Would you have gotten a permit if the governing agencies:
Were easier to deal with Had better customer service
Let you build what you wanted Had lower fees Didn’t raise your taxes
Taxes were lower
[1] Grand Jury reports 2000-2001, 2002-2003.
[2] Jondi Gumz, “5th District
hopefuls speak out at forum,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 15 February 2004, p.
A-19.
[3]
Brian Seals, “Out-of-towners seek
local support for state Senate run,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 14
February 2004, p. A-14.
[4] Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1 February
2004.
[5] Curtin's California Land Use and
Planning Law, 2003.
[6] 1997 Unified Building Code, section 106.1.
[7]
1997 Unified Building Code.
[8] Santa Cruz Sentinel, 25 June 2002.
[9] 1997 Uniform Building Code 106.1.
[10] Marina Malikoff, “Illegal units worry fire officials,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2 December, 2000, p. 1.
[11] 1997 Uniform Building Code; Cathy Redfern, “Woman dies in fire…,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 2003.
[12]http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06087.html.
16Santa Cruz Community Assessment Project 2003, p. 48, source U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary file 3, http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/products/CAP9_Economy2%20.pdf.
[17] Santa Cruz Sentinel,
7 March 2004.
[18] Santa Cruz Sentinel,
23 March 2004.
[19] Santa Cruz Sentinel,
1 February 2004.
[20] Santa Cruz Sentinel,
3 February 2004.
[21] Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1 February 2004.
[22] Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Getting legal…,” September 1, 2004, “Residents plead…,” November 7, 2001.
[23]
Santa
Cruz County Supervisors Almquist and Wormhoudt, letter to Board of Supervisors,
dated 19 June 2002 presented on the 25 June 2002 agenda of the Board of Supervisors
regular meeting.
Jeanene Harlick, “Third District supervisor
candidates face off in Bonny Doon,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 10 January
2002.
Heather Boerner, “Supervisors want shorter,
cheaper planning process,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 25 June 2002.
[24]
Heather
Boerner, “Getting legal: Tiny garage becomes part of a neighborhood,” Santa
Cruz Sentinel, 1 September 2002.
[25] Jeff Talmadge, “Planning…,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 6 August 2002. “Contractor thanks planning department,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, Letter to the Editor, 5 February 2001.
[26]
Pat
Dugan, “Clean up permit process,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, Letter to the
editor, 26 March 2001.
[27] 2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury report.
[28] Santa Cruz Sentinel, 25 June 2002. Also in Board of Supervisors Minutes 25 June 2002, 1 October 2002, 10 December 2002, 11 February 2003, 25 February 2003, and from letter dated 25 June 2002, http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/archive/ArchiveIndex.asp.
[29] Total Quality
Management is a management theory put forth by Dr. W. Edwards Demming. This
theory stresses teamwork, research, employee training and education, innovation
and continuous improvement. The theory has proven to be very successful in
foreign nations such as Japan. It has also been widely adopted by American
companies. (Recommended reading: Mary Walton, The Demming Management Method,
1985, and Daniel Hunt, Quality in America, 1992). These ideas are
also being adapted to government (See Al Gore, Report of National
Performance Reviews; Businesslike Government, 1996; Common Sense
Government Works Better and Costs Less, 1995; Serving the American
Public; Best Practices in Customer Driven Strategy, 1997).
[30] http://www.jointventure.org/initiatives/smartpermit/index.html, “Valley Permits Streamlined,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 22 March 2001.
[31] Heather Boerner, “Granny-unit amendment could affect thousands in Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 30 July 2002.
[32] “County pay at heart of threat: Salary reveals workers often labor for less…” http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/September/13/local/stories/021local.htm
[33]
Greg
Larsen, “Smart Growth in Silicon Valley,” The New Democrat, http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=154&contentid=1275
1-March 1999
34 Jondi Gumz, “County’s authority to ‘redtag’ challenged,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1 February 2004, p A-19
36 Fees vary by Water
District. Some examples: San Lorenzo Valley Water - $6,466. Soquel Creek Water
- $8,900. Lompico Water - $13,500, plus infrastructure development costs (meter
and piping cost by builder paid contractor).
37 This fee is only
required in approximately 10% of cases and may range from $2,500-$5,000 based
on actual cost of staff time. (Source: Santa Cruz County staff)
38 The soil/ geo fee is
based on where the lot is located. If a lot is flat and in an area with no soil
problems or geologic hazards, there may not beany fee required. For a lot in
mountainous terrain, there may be fees to review required geologic hazard and
soils reports. Some examples of these fees are: Minor Geologic Hazard Site
Review - $1,139. Soil Report Review $811. Geologic Report Review, flat fee of
$1,190 plus $130+ per hour for an engineer's review. (Source: Santa Cruz County
staff)