MIN CHC 1999-09-29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TANAKA: You're talking about building permits? HIGASHI: Processing, as provided in the scenario that's being proposed. TANAKA: On the building permit process, none. HIGASHI: None. So I think the Commission shouldn't be too concerned what the permitting part because I don't see, and I read the Charter, where you have any direct action to be taken in the permitting sense. TANAKA: Yes, you're right. It doesn't effect the Planning Commission directly, per se, with these changes. And these are justthe concerns of the Commissioners on the changes it would make to the department. RAY: Marni. HERKES: Stop me if I'm wrong, but in my notes here, the reasons that you don't recommend this is because the Department of Public Works doesn't have policies; because there'd be too much authority in one department; and because the Planning Department needs to know. Are those the three main reasons that you're recommending that? TANAKA: Pretty much, yes. HERKES: So, if we put in the Charterthat permits were granted with the stamp of an architect or an engineer, and then they were transferred electronically to Public Works, and transferred electronically to Department of Water Supply, and then granted, the Planning Commission really doesn't have a lot of - and I might suggest to the Planning Commission that they quit granting variances. People would spend more time looking at their lot lines. Anyway - TANAKA: You're probably right. RAY: Kevin. BALOG: I've got one more question for you. I forgot. You're a licensed contractor. If you could, as a contractor, go to, quote, a department, have that department review your application for permit, and approve it, vs. the current system - this is not as Commission representative - would that be favorable or unfavorable, and how do you think that would go back to you servicing your customer? TANAKA: As an applicant, I think it would be beneficial. 15