Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Streamlining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses permit-streamlining deadlines and steps to speed chair reviews
Summary
Staff described difficulties meeting the state's Permit Streamlining Act timelines and recommended non‑code measures — adding commissioners to the electronic permitting system, weekly trackers and office hours — to improve turnaround for chair reviews. Commissioners recommended clear email deadlines, phone follow-ups and applicant reminders.
At the July 14 meeting, Community Development Director Erica Ramirez told the commission that the Permit Streamlining Act imposes a two-part timeline: 30 days to deem completeness and 60 days to act on an application once complete. "Once an application is deemed complete, we have 60 days in order to act on it to approve it," Ramirez said.
Ramirez said staff has received 23 chair review applications last year and six so far this year and that workload can concentrate on the three commissioners who are state‑registered architects. She proposed non‑legislative remedies — adding commissioners to the new electronic permitting system, establishing office hours or a workstation at City Hall for reviewers, and generating automated reminders — to improve responsiveness.
Commissioners supported a master tracker and clearer expectations for turnaround. Vice Chair Claypool suggested a practical protocol: a clear deadline in the initial email, a three‑day expected acknowledgement, then a phone call and a five‑ to seven‑day anticipated substantive turnaround. Commissioner Martin and others emphasized the need to set explicit deadlines in staff emails; Commissioner (speaker 6) asked that initial messages include the date the 60‑day clock started.
Staff said the OpenGov system can generate weekly reports and email reminders to applicants; it can also allow staff to delegate and assign reviews electronically and save markups. Ramirez cautioned that changing the delegation requirement (which currently limits chair review to state‑registered architects) would require code amendments.
The commission did not take formal action but directed staff to return with process improvements and reporting that will make active chair reviews visible to all commissioners.
