Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outline permitting transparency improvements; council seeks follow‑up
Summary
Development Services staff described online tools, free consultations and permit turnaround metrics after a council request to improve permitting transparency. Councilmembers pressed for district‑level data, reviewer training and clearer online categorization for small developers.
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Development Services staff told the Planning and Community Development Committee on Jan. 27 that the department has expanded online tools and outreach intended to make permitting more transparent and predictable for residents and small developers.
"Soy Amin Tomás del departamento de desarrollo, y le voy a dar este informe," said Amin Tomás, who summarized the department's outreach, monthly meetings with stakeholders and new online resources designed to guide applicants through permit types and review timelines.
Tomás described services that include free preliminary review meetings, a three‑person consulting team that provides free consultations and after‑hours reviews, application examples and a public dashboard showing permit categories and average processing times. He said the city moved much of the process online over the last five years and that typical metrics show roughly 3,834 permits issued in the calendar year with an average turnaround of about 20 days, subject to monthly fluctuation.
Councilmembers welcomed the work but pressed staff on persistent problems for small or first‑time developers who sometimes receive inconsistent guidance from reviewers. Committee members asked staff to publish clearer online categories for project scale and to provide district‑level turnaround data. "Tenemos 73 casos para DSD... que fueron presentadas en una manera contradictoria a los residentes," Tomás said, acknowledging cases where applicants received conflicting information.
Members requested a written follow‑up and indicated they want staff to return with more detail on reviewer training, staffing needs and examples of inconsistent guidance so the committee can track improvements.
The report was received as information; no ordinance or vote changed permitting rules at this meeting.
