📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2012-2013
Navigating the Residential Building Permit Process
⚠️ 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 7 findings
F1
Page 38
Based on our investigation and the comments made at the public forums, it
F2
Page 38
Some Santa Cruz County building code amendments are difficult for both staff and
F3
Page 38
The new cost recovery fee called Construction Unpermitted-Recovery Enforcement
F4
Page 38
Inconsistency of provided information, most often concerning Zoning and Building
F5
Page 38
The Planning Department was not able to provide us with clear documentation that
F6
Page 38
The online fee estimator is not the same as the official fee calculator used by
F7
Page 38
The information provided in the Zoning Prescreen is not binding; it fails to warn the
Recommendations 7
-
R1Page 39The Planning Department should continue to streamline the county building code
-
R2Page 39The Department should allow routine OTC permits to be applied for, paid for, and
-
R3Page 39The Planning Department should adopt a set policy for Zoning and Building Code
-
R4Page 39The Planning Department should adopt the Minor Exceptions Provisions into the
-
R5Page 39The Planning Department should adopt a system to analyze data and track
-
R6Page 39The Planning Department should have the web fee estimator match the one used
-
R7Page 39The Planning Department should include a disclaimer on the Zoning Prescreen