City of Santa Barbara Office of the Mayor SantaBarbaraCA.gov*

There has often been criticism by those that interact with the Community Development Department. Response to Finding 1: The City agrees with this finding. ¹ The City's Land Development Team (LDT) is composed of staff from the following departments who review land development and construction applications: Community Development, Public Works, Parks and Recreation. Finance, and Fire. As part of the LDT Study, The Novak Consulting Group interviewed City staff, Councilmembers, and held six stakeholder focus groups composed of process customers (e.g., architects, builders, and developers), neighborhood group representatives, and land development process volunteers (e.g., Planning Commission and design review board members). In addition, an electronic survey was distributed to customers as a supplement to the focus group feedback. The staff interviews, focus group, and surveys demonstrated that all user groups value the outcomes of the land development process - the look and feel of the community - but process challenges and issues were identified. CDD staff are aware that the Department is subject to criticism. The land development process, by its nature, involves conflict. Applicants are seeking to complete a project as efficiently as possible, with the least possible cost. City staff are tasked with ensuring that all development meets adopted design, zoning, environmental, accessibility, and life/safety requirements. Residents and neighborhood groups want to ensure that the look and feel of the community are maintained, that their voices are heard, and that their interests are protected in the land development process. The finding that there has "often" been criticism of the Department is difficult to gauge and potentially overstated, in light of the volume of customer interactions staff has on a daily basis. To put it into perspective, the Planning and Building and Safety Division counter staff assist close to 25,000 customers each year, including project applicants, property owners, and interested parties of development projects; general inquiries about allowed uses and the permitting process; and concerned citizens wanting to view project plans or ask questions about the land development process. CDD staff regularly discuss areas for improvement and proactively identify opportunities for customer service enhancements, or ordinance or procedural changes that align with adopted policies and programs; however, a high volume of work and staffing vacancies make it challenging to implement all of the ideas put forward to management.

The length of time to get a permit issued by the Community Development Department can be discouragingly long. Response to Finding 2: The City disagrees partially with this finding because many factors determine the length of time from application acceptance to permit issuance. An explanation is below. The length of time it takes to review and approve a building permit application is dependent upon the following factors, and the cumulative time spent on each step: Applicant time to prepare a building permit application, which may include construction drawings, calculations, forms, legal agreement/easement documents, etc.; b. City staff review of the permit application materials, which includes project queuing time (based on workload and staff resources/availability); quality of the application materials (e.g., legibility of plans, internal consistency among application materials, project compliance with applicable regulations); the project scope and extent of review by the City (see Finding 3 of this report); and the clarity of staff comments and corrections returned to the applicant; c. Applicant time to respond to staff's corrections, which involves understanding the staff's comments/corrections, and either modifying the project to comply with applicable regulations (often including detailed technical codes) or responding to staff's comments with further information to explain an item needing clarification; d. Additional iterations (rounds) of items b. and c., above until approval can be granted by the City; Applicant time to provide the City with the contractor or owner/builder information and e. pay permit fees needed to issue the permit. In summary, accountability for the time required for building permit application approval and permit issuance lies with both the applicant and the City. Poorly prepared or incomplete application materials, or non-responsive application resubmittals delay the approval process. In April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City expedited its transition to online application and plan submittal. Since then, all LDT staff can access plans at the same time and complete concurrent review, eliminating a sequenced review required when only three sets of hard copy plans were available. This should facilitate a more expedient staff review of project plans and materials in the future. Each division in the LDT has measurable performance objectives for timely building permit plan review, which are submitted to the City Council with proposed operating budgets each fiscal year. The City does not currently publish these measures more than once per year, and information about an applicant's performance or turn-around time is not currently published. Within the next six months, the City will increase how frequently it shares information with the public about staff plan review and resubmittal performance.

There is a perception by many who interact with the Community Development Department that some staff do not favor growth. Response to Finding 3: The City disagrees partially with this finding because it is staff's responsibility to implement policies, regulations, and guidelines adopted by federal, state, or local officials. Further explanation is below.

There is a lack of coordination and communication and an inefficient work flow between the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions within the Community Development Department. Response to Finding 4: The City disagrees partially with this finding because some aspects of the workflow were modified during the Grand Jury's investigation. Further explanation is below.

A morale problem exists in the Community Development Department. Response to Finding 5: The City disagrees partially with this finding. Morale of individual staff and work groups in the CDD fluctuates due to a number of factors, some of which include workload, changing state and local regulations and internal policies, shifting City and department priorities, the state of the economy and its effect on the disposition of customers and the public, relationships with peers, and relationships with and among superiors. For these reasons, the City agrees that some staff do occasionally experience low morale. However, in general, the CDD staff have a positive attitude toward their work and are motivated to serve the City.

The current City of Santa Barbara's permitting fee structure discourages development. Response to Finding 6: The City disagrees partially with this finding because the fees directly relate to the land development processes established by the City Charter and Municipal Code, which reflect the community's desire to allow development within the City's available resources. The City hired Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC, to conduct an LDT Fee Study in 2018/2019 and issued a final report and recommendation in May 2019, with the objective of moving the City's LDT services toward full-cost recovery (i.e., without General Fund subsidy). The LDT Fee Study identified the total cost of providing each land development-related service, including development review, design review, zoning review, building permitting, engineering, transportation, inspection, code enforcement, and administrative fees. Revenue and Cost Specialists determined that the City had been historically subsidizing the land development process (i.e., charging less than the full cost of the service provided) by approximately $2 million each year. Based on initial City Council direction and a recommendation by Revenue and Costs Specialists, in June 2019 the City Council approved an updated fee schedule for land development services that significantly moved toward full-cost recovery. It is critically important to note that the City of Santa Barbara does not charge Development Impact Fees (DIFs). DIFs are imposed by many local governments on a new development project to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development. DIFs are commonly charged in communities that have geographical area to grow and extend roads and utilities or are underserved by parks or libraries, and rely on the DIFs to provide these community benefits. Because Santa Barbara is largely built out and most commonly subject to infill development, DIFs are not charged. Therefore, a comparison of the City of Santa Barbara's land development fees with other nearby communities must take into consideration other less obvious fees, such as DIFs. For example, the City of Goleta charges DIFs for services related to public administration, library, parks, storm drains, transportation, bicycle and pedestrian, and fire. For a mixed-use project with 29 residential units, the DIFs alone can amount to $535,000, in addition to approximately $33,000 in review and permit fees. In contrast, the City of Santa Barbara project review and permit fees for the same project would total approximately $86,000, and no DIFs are charged. The DIFs for a similar project in the City of Ventura are approximately $93,000, in addition to a rough estimate of $65,000 in project preview and permit fees.

There is ineffective oversight and leadership from upper management. City Response to Finding 7: The City disagrees partially with this finding because it is vague and might not account for all aspects of the Department's responsibilities. The Community Development Department includes four division managers and a department director responsible for affordable housing and human services, rental housing mediation, graphic design, general administration, budget management, long range planning and special studies, design review, development review, zoning and enforcement, records and archives, building permit plan review, and building inspection. While this Grand Jury report focuses on the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions of the department, a finding this broad does not seem to account for the wide-ranging services and responsibilities of the entire department.

There is inadequate staff training in the Community Development Department. Response to Finding 8: The City agrees with this finding.

There is inconsistent application of building codes in the Community Development Department. Response to Finding 9: The City disagrees partially with this finding. An explanation is below.