Shasta Lake Municipal Code Ch. 15.02 Process for State-Mandated Building Permit Expediting

Footnotes:

--- (2) ---

Editor's note— Ord. No. 17-266, § 1, adopted Oct. 3, 2017, repealed the former Ch. 15.02, §§ 15.02.010—15.02.050, and enacted a new Ch. 15.02 as set out herein. The former Ch. 15.02 pertained to small residential rooftop solar energy systems and derived from Ord. No. 15-243, § 1, adopted Oct. 6, 2015.

The purpose of this chapter is to adopt an expedited, streamlined permitting and inspection process for state-mandated building permit procedures including but not limited to green building ordinance, small residential rooftop solar energy systems, electric vehicle charging stations and any other new and forthcoming state mandates regarding expediting building permit procedures.

(Ord. No. 17-266, § 1, 10-3-2017)

A. This chapter applies to all state mandates for building permit procedures to expedite and streamline the permitting and inspection processes.

B. A use permit or administrative permit may be required to allow state-mandated building permit expeditions that are not in compliance with the zone district.

(Ord. No. 17-266, § 1, 10-3-2017)

A. Procedure, Checklist and Plans. The building official or his/her designee is authorized to establish a procedure for an expedited, streamlined permitting process and develop a checklist and standard plans for expediting state-mandated building permits, which will include the following:

1. The procedure, checklists and standard plans will substantially conform to the most current version of the California Permitting Guidebook adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research unless an ordinance is adopted to modify the checklists and standards due to unique climactic, geological, seismological or topographical conditions.

2. The checklist, standard plans and permitting documents shall be published on the city's website.

3. The city shall allow for electronic submittal of a permit application and other applicable plans and documents.

4. The city shall allow for an electronic signature on all forms, applications and other documentation in lieu of a wet signature by an applicant unless, by ordinance, the city states the reasons for its inability to accept electronic signatures, in which case an electronic signature shall not be allowed; and

B. Application Review and Building Permit Issuance.

1. The building official or his/her designee will coordinate application review with all pertinent agencies for their review of the application.

2. For an application that meets the requirements of the adopted checklist and standard plans, the building official or his/her designee will issue a building permit within three business days from the date the application is deemed complete.

3. If an application is deemed incomplete, a written notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required shall be sent to the applicant.

C. Inspection Process. The building official is authorized to establish a procedure for an expedited, streamlined inspection process, which will include the following:

1. The building official or his/her designee shall coordinate a consolidated inspection with other city departments as necessary. A separate fire safety inspection by SLFPD may be performed.

2. The inspection will be completed the next business day following the inspection request whenever possible. In no event will the inspection occur later than five business days from the date of the request.

3. A concise inspection list will be developed that provides permit applicants a clear understanding of what elements of the permit will be inspected before final approval.

(Ord. No. 17-266, § 1, 10-3-2017)

A. A permit may be denied by the building official if the building official makes a finding, based on substantial evidence, that a project have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.

B. The building official's decision may be appealed to the planning commission. The planning commission may not deny the application on appeal unless it makes written findings, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the proposal would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The findings shall include the basis for the rejection of potential feasible alternatives of preventing the adverse impact.

C. Any conditions imposed on an application shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact on public health and safety at the lowest cost possible.

(Ord. No. 17-266, § 1, 10-3-2017)