Alameda County committee hears update on Baker Tilly recommendations, Mainstar portal and potential permit coordinator

The Alameda County Transportation Planning Committee received an information update on the planning commission’s recommendations from the Baker Tilly development process review, including status on digital permitting, fee structure questions and proposals for a permit coordinator.

Planning staff told the committee that “the bulk of the recommendations” in the roughly two‑year‑old Baker Tilly review have been completed, while several larger items remain under discussion. Staff said the county has been focusing on refining the Mainstar portal so applicants can submit and track planning, building, fire and environmental health referrals in one connected system.

Why it matters: the remaining items include a proposed cross‑department project manager or permit concierge to troubleshoot multi‑department permit issues and a possible reorganization to make Environmental Health a standalone department. Supervisors said both topics affect customer service for unincorporated communities and asked staff to return with more data and policy options this fall.

Planning staff (identified in the transcript as Albert) explained that digital submissions and referral tracking are now possible and that many departments are integrated on Mainstar. “We meet with Mainstar twice a month to go over the portal and just refine it,” Albert said, adding that the portal allows applicants to see the status of referrals to fire, environmental health and building in real time.

Building department staff described how the permit process functions after a building permit is issued: “Once the building permit is issued, then the permit techs, each one of them, will be responsible for that specific permit,” the official said, explaining that permit staff coordinate with other departments and use portal signals to track status for applicants.

Fire Chief McDonald confirmed the department is connected to the same portal and can access plan status and workflow, saying, “We are on the portal.” Environmental Health staff (Ron) said his unit is developing its Mainstar workflow and aims to be fully integrated before the end of the year.

On fees, staff and supervisors debated the difference between moving to fixed permit fees (a planning commission subrecommendation) and the county’s current deposit/time‑and‑materials model. Planning staff and other department representatives said a user fee study — not performed in nearly two decades — would be useful before switching fee structures. Staff noted that many permits are handled on a cost‑recovery basis and that deposit/adjustment practices are already in place.

Supervisors also requested a management dashboard showing permit volumes, processing time and which projects are overdue so the committee can monitor implementation. Staff said the portal already contains the relevant data and can produce the requested reports.

During public comment, a caller identified as Kelly criticized use of outside consultants and raised an earlier Alameda County grand jury recommendation about limiting the board’s direct hiring authority; Kelly urged the board not to consolidate decision‑making without addressing those governance concerns.

Next steps: supervisors asked staff to return to the committee after the recess — targeting October or November — with dashboard data for FY24–25, the consultant’s checklist work, and policy items (including Environmental Health reporting options and whether the Office of Unincorporated Services could host a permit coordinator). No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting.

The committee adjourned the item after scheduling follow‑up presentations and data reports for later this year.