By Leah Etling, Staff Writer
A criticism by the grand jury of the utilization of citizen committees in the Santa Barbara County Planning Department earned a tempered but adamant response from the Board of Supervisors.
The Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury criticized Santa Barbara County’s appointment of citizen committees to deal with development issues that have what it describes as “worthy goals, little follow-through.”
To come to its conclusions, the jury looked at four individual committees set up by the Board of Supervisors: the Housing Advisory Committee, Affordable Housing Policy Committee, Process Improvement Team and Process Improvement Oversight Committee.
The grand jury looked at the reasons the committees were established, what the goals of each committee were and analyzed how the conclusions and recommendations of each were communicated back to the Board of Supervisors.
The conclusion: if the work of the committees was completed and communicated, it was often not acted on by the board.
In some cases, no work was ever done. The report states the Housing Advisory Committee never submitted any sort of report.
The supervisors, in a letter approved for submission to the grand jury, countered with the following response: “Wholly disagree.” The letter goes on to lay out the activities and recommendations of the Housing Advisory Committee, and states that the committee worked specifically on plans to end chronic homelessness, a report adopted in October 2006.
In response to the grand jury finding that “The Board of Supervisors and chief executive officer failed to follow through on the progress of the committee,” the board partially disagrees and states that staffing changes and a reorganization led to the absence of a final summary report on the Housing Advisory Committee’s activities.
The report also goes into some detail about recommendations made by the Affordable Housing Policy Committee regarding in-lieu fees on residential development to pay for affordable housing.
Identifying resources for affordable housing is part of the Housing Element update, which must be redone every five years. The supervisors said in their letter that the in-lieu fee idea will be looked at this summer as the element update proceeds.
One more functional example pointed out by the grand jury is the county’s Process Improvement Oversight Committee, a group set up to streamline county planning processes, such as building permits and project approvals.
That committee was charged with examining how to better structure the county’s development policies and processes and improve customer service as a result. However, after more than four years of work, there seems to be little definitive change associated with the committee’s work, the grand jury found.
A summary of the report concludes: “In return for their response to the county’s calls for help, these committees were met with the passivity from the (Board of Supervisors) that could discourage future participation from all but the most ardent citizen volunteers.”
The grand jury recommended the oversight committees should not be subject to potential political implications when tackling problems.The board stated in its response that it agrees.
“The recommendation has been implemented,” the letter says, stating examples such as the oak tree protection ordinance, zoning reformatting project, and down-zoning proposals to prevent growth and sprawl.
The report is one of several recently released summaries from the 2008–2009 Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury, made up of volunteers who want to help improve local government.
Reach Leah Etling at letling@syvjournal.com.
http://www.santaynezvalleyjournal.com/archive/7/21/4415/
No comments:
Post a Comment