Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

Planning and Building Departments’ Relationship to Illegal Building

Published: June 24, 2004 20 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 45 findings

JURISDICTION Capitola Santa Scotts Watsonville Santa Cruz County Cruz Valley (unincorporated) and population 10,150 55,600 11,650 47,600 134,700 Number of 359 1,593 373 1,176 3,794 building permits issued last fiscal year Number of 269 1,250 307 981 Does not track in residential permits (est.) this manner. Number of 90 343 66 195 Does not track in commercial (est.) this manner. permits Average number 7 121 21 16.1 Does not track in of days from this manner. permit application until issuance Average number 45 102 45 20.5 Does not track in of days for this manner. commercial permits Fee to be paid * $19,252 $16,155 $42,045 $29,837 $25,998 before issuance of (2,500 sq.ft. house, a building permit doesn’t include for a 1,500 sq. ft. water, discretionary house planning, soils/ geologic fees) Illegal units and 2 92 4 259 320 garage (estimated) conversions discovered last fiscal year. Number of staff in 2 6 2.25 9 22 Building Dept. Estimated # of 100+ 1,000 to 20-30 8,000 Would not estimate. illegal units 5,000 (“A lot”) Table 3. Survey of planning departments in Santa Cruz County, 2004. Source: - 6 Planning and Building Departments 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. City of Santa Cruz

The city said it is diligent in performing plan checking.

The city said that many factors contribute to the average time from application to issuance of permits.

Specialized plan checks and engineering plan checking are outsourced.

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.

City officials said they stress interpersonal service and receive compliments for good service.

Decision-making is decentralized.

The City Council has a hands-off approach and lets staff do their jobs.

Code enforcement is more reactive, unless a violation presents itself to them.

F10

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.

F11

The city has made it less restrictive and easier to build accessory dwelling units (Granny units).31 31 Heather Boerner, “Granny-unit amendment could affect thousands in Santa Cruz,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 30 July

F12

This city returned calls on the same day and delivered information to the Grand Jury within six days.

F13

Staff is reactive to code violation complaints.

F14

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. Capitola

F15

This city reports that its city councils have always stressed good customer service.

F16

The city is primarily built out, so certain violations like weed abatement are not an issue.

F17

This city said it is very efficient in issuing permits. Watsonville

F18

This city says it is very customer-oriented.

F19

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.

F20

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.

F21

It has a continuous improvement philosophy of “What can we do to make it better?” County of Santa Cruz

F22

The county said it is enforcing complex regulations.

F23

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. - 8 Planning and Building Departments

F24

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 3. Type Number of days Minor residential remodels and 24 additions less than 500 sq. ft. Major residential additions greater than 38 500 sq. ft. and commercial additions Single family dwellings 49 Commercial tenant improvements 35 Large commercial and multi-unit 70 residential projects Table 4. Average length of time between permit application and issuance, County of Santa Cruz Source: 2003-2004 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Survey

F25

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.

F26

County code enforcement is complaint driven (reactive). Miscellaneous Findings These findings represent individual views from various jurisdictions. They are listed separately to protect the confidentiality of agencies interviewed.

F27

Disability accessibility is required by law on new permits, but is not enforced by many jurisdictions.

F28

Some officials said that more regulations slow growth.

F29

Some officials said that people do not like regulatory agencies. Planning and Building Departments -9 10

F30

Staff said it performs in a professional manner.

F31

Loss of businesses are an issue in the City and County of Santa Cruz as companies move to areas where labor and housing are cheaper.

F32

Some officials said the county takes too long to issue permits.

F33

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.

F34

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.”

F35

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.

F36

Santa Cruz County is an expensive place to live compared to median home prices in most other areas.

F37

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 $59,11232

F38

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

F39

Citizens have organized to have more control over the planning process.34 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. Jondi Gumz, “County’s authority to ‘redtag’ challenged,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 1 February 2004, p A-19 35 Santa Cruz County Web site. - 10 Planning and Building Departments

F40

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

F41

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).

F42

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.

F43

The County Board of Supervisors has made previous attempts to improve the permit process.

F44

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.

F45

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. Conclusions

Recommendations 18

R1

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.
R2

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.
R3

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.
R4

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.
R5

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. Planning and Building Departments -13 14
R6

Planning and Building Departments should notify the County Assessor’s Office when illegal units and structures are discovered, so they may be assessed.
R7

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.
R8

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.
R9

Uniform departmental performance measures should be established and maintained so a jurisdiction can set goals and gauge how well it is doing.
R10

The county should continually improve its processes.
R11

The county should take measures to retain good, hardworking staff.
R12

The Board of Supervisors should be commended for trying to make the county planning processes better.
R13

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.
R14

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.
R15

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.
R16

The County Planning Department staff should be commended for its hard work on the Santa Cruz County Housing Element.
R17

The City of Santa Cruz should be commended for making the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny units) less restrictive.
R18

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. - 14 Planning and Building Departments