County building permit process ‘costly, time-consuming, and exasperating,’ watchdog says

A Santa Cruz County government watchdog sharply criticized the county’s complex building “permitting maze,” highlighting excessive delays, confusing requirements and limited public accessibility. 

In a new report released Monday, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury urged county officials to simplify or eliminate permits for some smaller projects, hire a full-time staff to act as a liaison between the public and staff, and open a “walk-up front desk” to assist the public with permits four hours a day, among other recommendations. 

A state-mandated, volunteer-led government watchdog group of 19 members, the civil grand jury interviewed homeowners, staff and contractors and reviewed permitting practices in Santa Cruz and other counties. 

The group found that obtaining a building permit is “one of the most costly, time-consuming, and exasperating endeavors undertaken in the county.” 

For years, businesses, homeowners and contractors have decried the permitting process in Santa Cruz County. The challenges have been exacerbated by recent disasters, including the CZU Complex fire, which inundated the permitting process with new projects, the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced the county to move the permitting process online, and now rising supplies costs from tariffs. Prior grand juries have also delved into the topic, in 2002, 2012 and in 2023 for a CZU fire rebuild report. On Tuesday, the county board of supervisors will discuss next steps and hear a progress report on similar recommendations produced by a consultant hired last year to review the permitting process. 

County Supervisor Kim De Serpa told Lookout that the county has long known about the challenges and is trying to address them — with the help of consultant Baker Tilly. 

“I feel very optimistic that things are changing for the better,” she said, adding that staff are working diligently to make changes recommended by the consultant, some of which are similar to the jury’s recommendations, like expanding the front-desk hours. 

De Serpa said it could be difficult or impossible to hire a full-time liaison because of the county’s budget challenges. She added that the board will file a formal response to the grand jury’s report soon, and said that at this point she wasn’t aware of anything in the watchdog group’s report that the board disagrees with. 

“This is a really smart group of people that are dealing with very complicated code, and trying to adhere to that,” she said about county staff. 

Santa Cruz County Community Development & Infrastructure spokesperson Tiffany Martinez said the department shares the same goal of improving the permitting process for residents. 

“In fact, the county had already begun addressing many of the identified issues prior to the report’s release,” she said. 

The department is made up of the Planning Division, Public Works Division and Unified Permit Center. The permit center is focused on helping the public navigate the permitting process. 

Martinez said the department is reviewing the grand jury’s recommendations and preparing a formal response – which the jury wrote is due by Aug. 22.

The jury’s findings centered around “excessive delays” that increase costs, a lack of knowledge among the public about what projects require permitting, loss of revenues from people unintentionally or intentionally not obtaining permits, and applicants having trouble tracking projects because of outdated permitting software. 

Additionally, the jury found that the county’s Building and Fire Code Appeals Board – which was disbanded by the board of supervisors in 2010 – could make the permitting process “smoother and less costly.” The volunteer board was made up of building professionals who decided on building permit applicants’ appeals of decisions made by the county.

The board of supervisors disbanded the appeals board because it argued the members weren’t addressing relevant matters and were failing to make decisions as they attempted to solve issues outside of their purview. 

In the report, the civil grand jury found that the board of supervisors hasn’t heard an appeal in five years: “This either means the system is working perfectly, or it means the system is effectively dead. Either conclusion is a black eye for the county.” 

When applicants appeal a decision on a building permit now, the Community Development and Infrastructure director reviews the grievance and decides if it should be referred to the board of supervisors. Building professionals aren’t involved in the appeal process today. 

The civil grand jury said it thinks this process isn’t independent and recommends that the board of supervisors reestablish the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board. 

The grand jury’s eight recommendations — including the appeals board — also call for the board of supervisors to examine other counties’ best practices to reduce costs and delays for permitting and then choose some of those strategies. Additionally, it suggests that supervisors direct staff to use software that “removes barriers to applicants” and can flag permits that have gone unaddressed for longer than two weeks to avoid delays. 

The grand jury recommended the board implement these ideas by Jan. 1. 

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.