⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 20 findings
F01
The GTE Plan is structured as an “Action Plan” according to the County’s Lean Six Sigma Program, in which 23 specific action projects are identified, each with a priority, a schedule, and one or more identified leaders. In May 2009, some nine projects were described as “Complete.” In the past year, an additional five projects were completed, leaving nine yet to finish.
No recommendations for this finding
F02
Both public and County Stakeholders report satisfaction with the most visible and early implemented GTE Plan element: the “one stop” application coordinator located in the Planning Department of the RMA.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The County has adopted a single land-use permit application form, accessible and downloadable at the County RMA website. [Ref-02 ]
No recommendations for this finding
F04
RMA provides website access to a list of active discretionary permit applications (backlog) and to a list of applications approved during the last six months. [Ref-03] 1 Land use permits are generally one of two types: ministerial or discretionary, as described in the RMA Planning Department web page: A ministerial permit is a permit or permit modification that is granted based upon determinations that the proposed project complies with established standards set forth in either the Coastal or Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances. The determinations are arrived at objectively, involve little or no personal judgment, and are issued by the Planning Director or his/her designee. This type of permit is commonly referred to as an “over the counter” approval. A discretionary permit is a permit or permit modification granted following determinations that require the exercise of judgment and deliberation, as opposed to merely determining that the permit request complies with a set of standards. Examples of discretionary permits include: Conditional Use Permits, Zone Changes, Variances, Subdivisions, and General Plan Amendments. Most discretionary permit applications require an analysis by the Planning Division and various County Departments and Agencies, as well as a public hearing prior to any decision being made. A decision to approve or deny a permit application is based on the findings of fact contained in either the Ventura County Coastal or Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence
No recommendations for this finding
F05
The County has established a Development Review Committee, composed of senior land-use planning staff and related County department and agency representatives, to provide preliminary interagency feedback to potential applicants prior to filing a formal discretionary land-use permit application.
No recommendations for this finding
F06
RMA has led several Stakeholder meetings for the purposes of reporting progress on the GTE Plan and for receiving feedback from the public regarding the discretionary land-use permitting process.
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The County formed a Management (Inter-Agency) Oversight Committee, which includes the Assistant CEO and Chief of Staff, the Fire Chief, the Director of the RMA, the Director of the Public Works Agency, and the Agricultural Commissioner. There are no public (non-County employee) members. The committee is charged with meeting “regularly” to track the GTE Plan progress and to monitor the discretionary permitting process. [Ref-04]
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The Management Oversight Committee is not currently meeting on a regular basis.
No recommendations for this finding
F09
On April 6, 2010, the RMA provided an interim GTE Plan progress report to the BOS. The status report showed improvement in time to process permit applications, while cautioning that a one-year period is too short for measurement of sustained results. (Att-02)
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The recent progress report showed results (metrics) comparing processing times for completed projects. There were no reports of application backlog.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04
As the agency collecting and reporting GTE Plan progress statistics, the RMA should also collect and report aged backlog metrics at the level of the responsible agency, or lower. (C-06)
F11
The single most important driver of time and cost to process a discretionary land-use permit application is the decision whether, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the applicant’s project may be subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The County maintains Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAG) to assist each reviewing agency in making its input to the EIR decision. The ISAG is a document in excess of 120 pages which contains advice and criteria applicable to each reviewing agency and department. The ISAG also serves as a reference for users in preparing applications for discretionary land-use permits.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The County’s current ISAG is outdated and inconsistent. Update of the ISAG by all departments and agencies is currently the most difficult step in the GTE Plan. It requires participation by a multitude of organizations with widely varying laws, rules, objectives, and standards to apply to potential land-use permits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03
The CEO should re-organize the internal Management Oversight Committee to include at least one County employee from a department external to the permitting process. The CEO should insist on regular meetings, as often as semi-monthly, until the ISAG is updated and approved. (C-04)
F14
The RMA’s April 6, 2010 progress report to the BOS estimated completion of the updated ISAG project in May 2010. (Att-01) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 3
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The County now estimates completion of the GTE Plan in Fall 2010, a year later than reported to the 2008-2009 Ventura County Grand Jury. [Ref-01]
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
Both the BOS and the CEO should conduct regular, in-depth reviews of the Land-Use Permitting GTE Plan progress, and should strongly support the Plan to its completion. (C-01 through C-08)
F16
The GTE Plan update submitted to the BOS showed four of the nine remaining GTE projects dependent upon the ISAG update. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Six of the nine active GTE projects reported no activity since December 2009, including three of the ISAG-dependent projects. (Att-01)
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
Both the BOS and the CEO should conduct regular, in-depth reviews of the Land-Use Permitting GTE Plan progress, and should strongly support the Plan to its completion. (C-01 through C-08)
F18
On January 12, 2010, with the support of the Management Oversight Committee (MOC), four County agencies presented a proposal to the BOS for acquisition of an upgraded computer software system to manage and track land-use permit applications. The BOS deferred action, recommending that the $4.3 million acquisition be folded into the County 2010-2011 budget proposal, together with the estimated $635,000 annual maintenance cost and the one added staff position. Among the purported advantages of the upgraded system are: [Ref-05] • citizen and applicant access to application status • on-line scheduling of inspections and appointments • common database for all agencies • wireless access by field inspectors • progress and activity data • on-line visibility of status and metrics by management
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
The BOS and the CEO should ensure that a suitable automated permits data and status system is approved for acquisition and implementation in the County’s 2010-2011 budget. (C-09)
F19
Stakeholders continue to express emphatic concerns regarding two issues only indirectly addressed by the GTE Plan: • the inability of the County to reasonably estimate in advance the cost to the applicant for processing discretionary land- use permit applications • the perception of inconsistency regarding treatment of applications by County agencies
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
The CEO should perform an in-depth review of the methods for charging planning and permitting fees to users, with the objective of achieving a system which supports defined estimates of cost to applicants. (C-10) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 5 Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-06) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-06) References Ref-01. 2008-2009 Ventura County Grand Jury Land Use Permitting Process Get to Excellence Plan http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page/portal/Grand_Jury/Repo rts/TAB4579372/14LandUsePermittingProcess.pdf Ref-02. RMA Web Page-Discretionary Permit Application Form: http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/permits/Disc_Application_P acket.pdf Ref-03. RMA Planning Division Web Page-Recently Approved and Pending Projects http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/Permits/projects.html Ref-04. Letter—CEO-BOS Response to 2008-2009 Report http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page/portal/Grand_Jury/Repo rts/TAB4579372/20091216081533.pdf Ref-05. County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Letter January 12, 2010, Subject: Award of Contract to Accela Corporation for Upgrade of the Current Land Records Management & Permit Processing/ Tracking System http://bosagenda.countyofventura.org/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype= agenda&itemid=28422 Attachments Att-01. County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Letter, April 6, 2010, to Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura, Subject: Status Report on the Discretionary Land Use Permitting Process Improvement Program and Related Metrics/Performance Att-02. Get to Excellence Plan Action Plan , update 04-Mar-10 ________________________________________________________________ 6 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 7 ATT-01 County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Letter, April 6, 2010, to Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura, Subject: Status Report on the Discretionary Land Use Permitting Process Improvement Program and Related Metrics/Performance ________________________________________________________________ 8 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 9 ________________________________________________________________ 10 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 11 ________________________________________________________________ 12 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 13 ________________________________________________________________ 14 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 15 ________________________________________________________________ 16 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 17 ________________________________________________________________ 18 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 19 Att-2 Get to Excellence Plan Action Plan, update 04-Mar-10 ________________________________________________________________ 20 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 21
F20
Several County departments, including the RMA Planning Division, are partially supported by “enterprise funds,” whereby a user of County services pays for the cost of services performed. Conclusions C-01. Implementation of the GTE Plan is showing beneficial effects both upon the County land-use permitting process and, to a lesser extent, upon the perceptions of the Stakeholders. (F-01 through F-06) C-02. GTE Plan projects susceptible to being implemented by a single department have proven the quickest to implement. Multi-agency activities are taking longer. (F-01) ________________________________________________________________ 4 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence C-03. The RMA lists of “in process” and “approved” applications provide basic workload visibility information. (F-04) C-04. Members of the MOC are closely involved with their own organizations’ implementation of the GTE Plan, which may inhibit objective committee oversight. (F-07, F-08) C-05. With substantial contribution from the GTE actions, the time for RMA to process approved permits shows improvements in all categories. (F-09) C-06. Lack of reported backlog metrics makes assessment of overall progress more difficult. (F-09, F-10) C-07. The ISAG update is proving slow and difficult, a reflection of the multitude of organizations and requirements to be integrated. (F-11) C-08. Implementation of the GTE Plan is losing momentum while the ISAG project is being resolved. (F-11 through F-17) C-09. The need for an upgraded permits data and status system, such as that proposed to the BOS, is well-supported. The Grand Jury is not able to independently judge whether the proposed system will achieve its objectives, or whether the price is reasonable. (F-18) C-10. When costs billed to applicants are based on the time spent on their projects, and when those billed costs represent a substantial part of a departmental budget, there is potential for a perceived conflict of interest on the part of the performing organization. (F-19, F-20) Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 6C-01. Implementation of the GTE Plan is showing beneficial effects both upon the County land-use permitting process and, to a lesser extent, upon the perceptions of the Stakeholders. (F-01 through F-06) C-02. GTE Plan projects susceptible to being implemented by a single department have proven the quickest to implement. Multi-agency activities are taking longer. (F-01) ________________________________________________________________ 4 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence
-
CL2 Page 7C-03. The RMA lists of “in process” and “approved” applications provide basic workload visibility information. (F-04) C-04. Members of the MOC are closely involved with their own organizations’ implementation of the GTE Plan, which may inhibit objective committee oversight. (F-07, F-08) C-05. With substantial contribution from the GTE actions, the time for RMA to process approved permits shows improvements in all categories. (F-09) C-06. Lack of reported backlog metrics makes assessment of overall progress more difficult. (F-09, F-10) C-07. The ISAG update is proving slow and difficult, a reflection of the multitude of organizations and requirements to be integrated. (F-11) C-08. Implementation of the GTE Plan is losing momentum while the ISAG project is being resolved. (F-11 through F-17) C-09. The need for an upgraded permits data and status system, such as that proposed to the BOS, is well-supported. The Grand Jury is not able to independently judge whether the proposed system will achieve its objectives, or whether the price is reasonable. (F-18) C-10. When costs billed to applicants are based on the time spent on their projects, and when those billed costs represent a substantial part of a departmental budget, there is potential for a perceived conflict of interest on the part of the performing organization. (F-19, F-20)
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office