Senior planner Sonfangilardo outlined the city’s development‑review process at a Planning Commission study session, explaining how applications move from ministerial permits to discretionary land‑use entitlements and when environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies.

The presentation, titled “Planning 101: navigating the development review process,” described common ministerial permits (building, plumbing, roofing, solar) and entitlement applications (conditional use permits, site‑plan review, planned unit developments) and summarized CEQA paths including exemptions, initial studies, and environmental impact reports. “In some cases, environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act, which I mentioned previously, CEQA, would be required,” Sonfangilardo said.

Commissioners and staff discussed several aspects of the process that affect project timelines. Commissioner Meeks asked for clarification about occupancy permits. Planning staff explained there are different contexts: a home‑occupation permit, administrative occupancy permits that document a change in use when no construction occurs, and a certificate of occupancy issued after final inspection. “For example, you could have a retail use that's changing to an office use...we're just saying, yes, this building is still safe for the new proposed use,” a staff member said.

Commissioners sought data on average permit processing times. Staff said detailed processing‑time statistics are published in the annual Permit Center report and will be included in a January 2026 report covering calendar year 2025; staff offered to provide current averages on request. “That information...can be provided to you, but will be also included in our January 26 report, which will cover the calendar year '25 for permit center data in terms of processing time,” the presenter said.

A member of the public who identified themselves as working in the roofing trades urged stronger protections for licensed contractors, saying it is often easier for homeowners to obtain owner‑builder permits and then hire unlicensed workers. “It's way easier for a homeowner to go get an owner‑builder permit, like, for a reroof than it is for a roofing contractor to get one,” the speaker said. The contractor added that widespread owner‑builder permits for projects that are then done by hired crews reduce revenue for licensed contractors and complicate enforcement.

City staff responded that the Permit Services Division and enforcement capacity are being examined. The community development director said staff would develop a follow‑up response in coordination with the permit services division and that the city is expanding a contract with the consultant Willdan to increase weekend and weekday enforcement capacity for unpermitted work and related blight and health‑and‑safety issues. “We are in terms of enforcement, we are expanding our contract with Willdan...to also focus on other blight and health and safety issues such as work without permit, throughout the week and on the weekend as well,” the director said.

Staff also summarized state efforts to streamline housing approvals and cited specific laws commissioners should know when reviewing applications: Senate Bills 9, 35, 131 and 330 and Assembly Bill 130 were referenced as examples that reduce entitlement barriers for certain housing projects. Staff explained the Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code section 65943) requires the city to determine application completeness within 30 days and establishes follow‑up timelines that vary by project type and CEQA status.

The commission closed the study session with no further public comment. Staff noted upcoming items on a Nov. 5 joint meeting agenda, including an alcohol license at 1018 North Davis Road and a development agreement for city parking lots, and committed to circulate meeting minutes and follow‑up data by email.