Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department

Published: June 03, 2003 10 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F1
The members of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors make it a widespread practice to provide direct input into the day-to-day operations of the Planning Department. Communications from Supervisors to all planning levels ranged from phone calls and e-mail to personal meetings and detailed memos. During the time period investigated, there were thousands of emails and memos between the Supervisors and the Planning Department staff. Some of the memos simply stated that the Supervisor had no specific input for a particular permit. One Supervisor has a scheduled bi-weekly meeting with the Planning Department. The amount of intervention in the planning process varied by supervisor. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa -65 The County concurs that many contacts occur between individual Board members, their staff, and Planning Department staff but cannot confirm the number of emails and memos between the Supervisors and Planning Department staff without knowing the specific time period referenced by the Grand Jury in which it conducted its inquiry. Also, it is not clear what is meant by the term “intervention.” It is true that the amount of contact with staff varies among Supervisors. However, contact does not necessarily indicate intervention. Frequently, Supervisors’ communications are focused on inquiries regarding the status of an application or issue. Often the communications consist of no more than a request that staff respond to constituent inquiries or questions. Sometimes Supervisor contacts consist of efforts to facilitate meetings between constituents and staff from several County departments, including Planning. Also, and perhaps most importantly, communications address issues concerning neighborhood responses to development proposals, and correctly so. The Supervisors, as the elected representatives of the area, are uniquely well positioned to assess and communicate neighborhood concerns.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The planning staff testified that they are under pressure to comply with the directives given them by the members of the Board of Supervisors. The planning staff does not like the interference because it disrupts the orderly completion of their tasks. The Grand Jury review of the relevant emails and memos also found that the tone of many of these were condescending and abusive. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Planning staff's role in the county's land use policy and development review process is to expedite and facilitate informed decision-making. The process is structured to maximize the opportunity for input by various interested parties, including individual Board members who choose to provide comments regarding specific permit applications. Decision-makers, including the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors as a whole, are not bound in their decision-making by the staff's
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury strongly recommends Santa Cruz County adopt an ordinance similar to that of San Diego County regulating the communications between the County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department staff. The example ordinance in the
F3
San Diego County has an ordinance prohibiting the members of the Board of Supervisors from communicating with planning department staff regarding public hearings on permit applications, except within the context of public hearings themselves. See the appendix for details. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -66 Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Some red tag1 violations are more important than others. They can reflect health and safety issues as well as the more mundane issues such as fence heights, shed placement and even designs. There is a backlog of approximately 3,000 red tags, some of which go back many years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES At the time that the Grand Jury conducted its inquiry, the backlog of Code Compliance cases may indeed have approximated 3,000. However, as reported to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2003, the number of unresolved code compliance cases has been reduced to 2,127. Also, as reported in the June report, staff continues to identify and implement alternatives for achieving further reduction and ultimate elimination of the backlog case inventory.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Planning Department should immediately formulate and execute an equitable, prioritized plan to close the entire backlog of over 3000 neglected or unreasonably delayed red tag violations in the County. This should be accomplished by the fair exercising of all existing codified options including amnesty, correction, dismissal, public hearings and penalties in whatever combination will eliminate the backlog not later than December 31, 2004. Either the red tags are valid issues that need enforcement, or they are not. Since fines and penalties are designed to cover the bulk of the enforcement costs, the current budgetary problems should not be at issue. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. The Planning Department has been critically reviewing its policies and procedures over the past two years in an effort to streamline the enforcement program and to reduce the inventory of unresolved code compliance cases. Over this period of time, the Board of Supervisors has considered a series of reports from the Planning Department including specific recommendations to accomplish these objectives. In turn, the Board has approved numerous policy changes that have since been implemented, including: • Shifting the administration of the hearing officer process from County Counsel to the Planning Department. • De-emphasizing the pursuit of civil penalties in routine cases in favor of negotiated compliance agreements that set forth specific compliance milestones including a timeline for compliance with penalties waived if compliance is achieved. • Approval of a limited enforcement response for minor violations. -70 Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa • Enactment of a focused enforcement response where the initial investigation is restricted to the violation reported, related violations, and health and safety hazards. • Approval of a non-enforcement policy for older violations in existence prior to 1980, with certain exceptions. • Amending Chapter 12.01.070 of the County Code to expand the criteria where the Planning Director may approve the issuance of a permit on a property where a violation exists. • Amending the Uniform Building Code to expand the list of work that is exempt from the requirement to obtain a building permit. • Approved specific criteria for closing older, inactive cases. • Amending County Code Chapter 19.01.070 regarding administrative appeals of Code enforcement actions. • Approval of an outreach program for illegal second units. • Approval of several other caseload reduction strategies, including directives to study the site standards in the rural area, and to propose revisions to the regulations governing minor structures associated with residential uses. As a result of the implementation of these significant changes in policy, along with other administrative improvements, the Planning Department has reduced the active and inactive caseload by 52.9 %, as reported to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2003. In addition to this overall reduction in the code compliance caseload, the department has also improved the efficiency of the process. The department will continue these efforts in the coming year.
F5
The Santa Cruz County Planning Department requires that all red tag and use permit violations for a given property be resolved at the same time. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. Santa Cruz County Code Section 12.01.070 C requires that all code compliance violations be resolved before issuance of a building permit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Planning Department should not, without some compelling reason, require the resolution of unrelated issues when deciding a course of action on any particular issue. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County will implement this recommendation as allowed under the County Code.
F6
The winery in question is operating under a use permit issued in 1976. All agree that the permit was loosely and poorly worded. The winery and the county disagree as to whether or not current operations violate the 1976 use permit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The initial complaints against the winery began in 1993 and the first code compliance red tag was issued in 1997. The winery has applied for permits to resolve some of the building permit related red tags. However, the Planning Department will not resolve the building violations until they can reach a new agreement on the scope of the current and still valid use permit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES A number of complaints have been filed on this property with the Planning Department’s Code Compliance section alleging violations of Use Permit conditions and other violations of the County Code. Code Compliance staff investigated the complaints and determined both that violations, in fact, exist and that clarification of the 1976 permit’s conditions of approval is needed concerning activities having significant implications relative to adverse impact on adjacent residential land uses. Pursuant to the authority set forth in County Code Section 18.10.136, the Planning Department prepared a report to the County Planning Commission that discussed the issues of non-compliance and recommended that the Planning Commission initiate the process to amend the Use Permit for the winery to address those issues. After consideration of the staff report, and 1 A “red tag” is an official notice of violation of a building code. If not attended to, it is filed at the County Recorder's Office and thereby blocks new title insurance policies. This prevents the refinancing or sale of a property. Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa -67 following testimony by the neighbors and winery representatives, on July 23, 2003, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the review of the use permit until September 24th to allow the property owner an opportunity to file an application to amend their permit to address the range of issues that have been raised.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
A Supervisor directly interfered in the normal handling of the code violation complaint against this winery. It was done in a sincere attempt to mediate between factions having trouble finding a middle ground, but in the process the ordinary procedure of code compliance hearings was subverted three times. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES The ordinary procedure of code compliance hearings was not subverted. The Planning Department believes that the permit was validly issued, but concedes that it could have been written more clearly. The lack of clarity has probably contributed substantially to the current disagreements between the winery, nearby residential properties, and the County. This case is currently, and properly, before the Planning Commission for resolution, and the ordinary compliance hearings were not subverted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The complaints and violations regarding the winery should be – immediately and without further delay -- adjudicated by the means prescribed in the county codes: a fair and impartial public administrative hearing, with proper advance notice to all interested parties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Due to the issues mentioned above concerning language contained in the permit, a code compliance administrative hearing is not the appropriate forum to resolve the issue. The matter is now properly before the Planning Commission.
F9
The code violations alleged in the complaint were valid and supported by photographs, and by county records in the possession of the County Supervisors, the County Planning Department and other entities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the clarification that the validity of issues raised in the complaint remain the subject of review.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The planning and code compliance staff, below the level of Planning Director, attempted to carry out their responsibilities and enforce the code. They were directed to do otherwise by their superiors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES The Planning Director did not direct the planning and code compliance staff to do other than carry out their responsibilities and enforce the code. The code compliance staff conducted investigations and filed a Notice of Violation on the winery property before the Planning Director had even been aware of the issues related to this property. Furthermore, staff had also already secured the winery property owner's cooperation in correcting several of the uncontested alleged violations before the matter had been brought to the attention of the Planning Director. The Planning Director's involvement was related exclusively to two issues: 1) reviewing the code compliance staff's conclusion that language describing the need to regulate certain aspects of the winery operation, which was in the accompanying staff report but not included in the 1976 permit, was not, in fact, a part of the permit, and; 2) whether a vehicle, other than pursuing resolution of the violations through the administrative hearing process, court, or amendment of the 1976 permit could be utilized to address issues never contemplated or included in the 1976 approval. -68 Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa The Planning Director concurred with the code compliance staff's assessment that the permit, and not the staff report, was the basis of evaluation of whether or not violations exist regarding the winery operation. Aware of the neighbors’ concerns and the winery owner’s reluctance to open up the 1976 permit in order to accommodate possible new approval conditions, the Planning Director tried, unsuccessfully, to get all interested parties to a point where equally effective alternatives to amending the 1976 permit could be explored. The matter presently before the Planning Commission for consideration involves questions beyond the code enforcement efforts of the department. To the extent that code compliance actions could be taken, they were and without impediment. The Commission is properly exploring the question of what to do about a permit, issued by the County, that some believe does not adequately delineate or provide protections for surrounding land uses from the activities authorized by that permit. Conclusions
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 4