Good afternoon. It's 130, and as is my want, I like to start on time. Toni, will you please take the roll? Kamei Campos Tordillos Cohen here. Ortiz Mulcahy. Doan. Candelas. Here. Foley here. Casey. Mahan. Do you have a quorum? Thank you. Okay, so we are here for the study session. From ideation to occupancy, a Guide to Building in San Jose, permitting timelines and coordination. And I know we based on the PowerPoint that I looked at earlier this weekend, there's a lot to go over in this particular study session. So why don't we. Chris, why don't you kick us off? Actually, I'm going to kick us off. Let I'll let you. Kick it. Thank you. Please. Thank you, vice mayor. So vice mayor and city Council, we are pleased to convene the study session today as Development Services plays a very critical role in advancing economic development in our city and supporting San Jose's long term fiscal health. The administration shares the City Council's commitment to continuously improving the permitting process so we can achieve achieve our shared city Council focus area goals of building more housing and growing our economy. We understand the importance of reducing risk and costs to our important development and business communities, as well as for our homeowners undertaking their own projects while we work to get to yes as quickly as possible, with the goal to provide best in class service to our businesses and residents. We know there is more we can do to make the process more efficient, predictable and transparent. This includes the development services, service delivery, optimization and realignment work we have previously discussed that is now getting underway. Broadly speaking, two elements shape development in our city. First is policy and regulation, and second is the development services permitting process. The City Council has taken important policy actions to facilitate housing production, including the downtown and multifamily, residential and incentive programs and the infill Housing Ministerial Ordinance that provides a streamlined review process. Today, however, our focus is on the permitting process. Development Services Partners will walk you through how the process works. Illustrate the coordination required across departments and highlight factors that influence timelines and outcomes. You'll also hear directly from our customers about their experiences and we will conclude with an overview of ongoing improvements and next steps. The teams put a lot of effort into this study session today, so I hope we all have some good takeaways today. So I'm going to turn it over to director Chris Burton to introduce the team and start the presentation. Thank you Chris. Thank you Jennifer. And good afternoon, Vice Mayor and City Council. And thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Chris Burton, Director of planning, building and Code Enforcement and I'm joined today by representatives across our development services team. We have Assistant Fire Chief James Dobson, deputy director for planning. Munira Sandhir, deputy director for building. Lisa Joyner, deputy director for public works, Jay Guevara, and also my chief of staff in PBCE, Alex Powell. So today's study session is intended to provide a practical guide to how development permitting in San Jose works, from ideation through to occupancy, and to build a shared understanding of what drives timelines, where complexity comes from, and where there are real opportunities for us to continue to improve. We're often before the City Council on the policy choices that shape growth and help turn ideas into homes and businesses, but today we really want to focus on how that work is actually delivered across multiple departments, including outside agencies, within a system that hopefully feels like one process to our customers. But in reality involves many different reviews, requirements, and decision points. The outcome we're aiming for is a clearer, shared understanding of the permitting system and the priority actions, investments and performance expectations needed to make it faster, more predictable, and more effective, particularly in support of our building more housing and growing our economy. Focus area goals permitting matters because it shapes whether projects move forward, how quickly community benefits are realized, how effectively the city can support safe, well-planned development. Today, we want to put that full picture in front of you. And I wanted to kick us off today with just a little context. Actually, our earliest recorded permit is for alterations to the able House, which is on the corner of San Pedro and Saint James, and that was back in 1895. But rather than that one, I brought this permit for you to see today, which is from December of 1925, and it's actually for a 12 story bank building in the heart of downtown, almost exactly 100 years later, we issued the latest in a long line of permits on our very own Bank of Italy building to allow it to convert from commercial to residential. In the context of the current housing crisis, and as a way to reinvigorate this iconic part of our downtown skyline. Back then, this permit was valued at $800,000, which in today's money is about $15 million. I'll let you guess on what that might actually cost to build today. I'm pretty sure that number's off a little, but I think it's an important reminder that our work also spans time. The decisions that we make through the permitting process have a lasting impact on the physical form of our city and its built environment. They reflect the values of the city and have a measurable effect on the lives of residents and businesses, both today and into the future. So, as noted, today's agenda is quite long and we'll cover a lot of information. Any part of which we could happily dive into much further. But we'll start with a high level overview of our development services partners. Then we'll walk through what we call the development continuum, both from a city and applicant perspective. We're going to look at the different service pathways we have with affordable housing as a case study. Talk about what drives time to completion. Explain the role of fees and requirements. Highlight the tools and technology that support the work. And then close with continuous improvements and where we're going next. Along the way, you will hear from our customers as well. So the conversation is informed not just by us as staff, but by people with direct experience of that system itself. Before we move into that first section, I just want to make one broader point, and that is that the purpose of today is not to suggest that every project should move through the same pathway, or that every delay has the same cause. It's to show that if we want better outcomes, we need to understand the system as it actually operates. Distinguish between the time we control and the time we do not. And then continue to focus our improvement efforts where they can make the biggest difference. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Assistant Fire Chief Dobson to walk you through our development services team. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council. James Dobson, San Jose Fire Department assistant chief. At the center of our development services are four core partners planning, building, public works and fire. These departments coordinate closely to review development proposals to ensure development moves forward efficiently, comprehensively and in alignment with minimum safety standards and community policy objectives. Our goal continues to encourage development by continually evaluating how we enhance the customer experience, while maintaining safety in the built environment requiring compliance with those minimum safety codes and standards. The infrastructure requirements and community standards. We are dedicated to exploring ways to enhance our service delivery by conducting parallel timeline reviews and providing timely feedback to expedite the plan review process. Core partners regularly coordinate with other city departments regional agencies, state agencies, utilities, and special districts. Much of this coordination occurs behind the scenes through inter- departmental communication technical consultation during concurrent review cycles, issue resolution meetings to move projects forward, and code interpretation for complex projects that don't meet maybe prescriptive requirements, but have a pathway to meet the spirit of the code. This behind the scenes coordination helps reduce conflicting requirements improve consistency, streamline project delivery, and improve customer experience. Our applicants often interact with a gatekeeper, such as the planning department or building department. Multiple departments and agencies coordinate in parallel to ensure that the 36,000 plus projects that come through development services annually are reviewed efficiently to meet safety requirements, infrastructure needs and policy objectives. San Jose serves a wide and diverse customer base, ranging from individual homeowners to large national developers focused on building businesses and residential spces for our community through ground up builds that require utility infrastructure to tenant improvements and occupancy modifications. Often, the project specifications can change up to and including the project's inspection cycle cycle. Based on the project's complexity. Development services partners often engage with customer segments, including property owners developers design professionals, specialty consultants, contractors, external agencies, and community. Each customer brings a different level of experience, expectations, and project complexity, which requires flexible service pathways and technical coordination by the city's plan. Reviewers and inspectors. Before a project ever reaches the city. Significant work has already occurred, including concept development, feasibility analysis, financial evaluation, and preliminary design. This constitutes a major part of the timeline for a project to go rom ideation to occupancy. Development projects typically begin with the idea, followed by that feasibility analysis. A financial modeling site evaluation, conceptual design, design development, construction planning, the city's role represents a relatively small portion of the overall project timeline and focuses primarily on ensuring that the project meets minimum safety code standards and adopted regulations. Design professionals, architects engineers and specialty consultants are responsible for preparing, preparing complete and compliant design documents that adhere to those standards, codes, and best management practices. Once design documents are well prepared and code compliant, timeline review timelines are significantly reduced. It is important to recognize that most of the time spent on development occurs outside of the city review, and that costs that drive the project are typically centered around land acquisition materials and labor. San Jose serves a wide range of development types, with 38 planning department permit types, 41 building Department permit types, 22 public works permit types and 19 fire Prevention permit Types. A project may be a minor residential improvement. A tenant improvement. Small business projects. Large residential developments, high rises or hazardous materials facility. Each type of projects presents different levels of complexity, risk, and public impact. Therefore, our permitting processes are equally diverse. Development services must balance project timelines, funding requirements, priorities, council priorities and community expectations. These priorities influence our development, including housing production, safety improvements, sustainability mobility and neighborhood quality development. Service provides multiple service pathways designed to match review efforts with complex project complexity. These pathways include online permitting over the counter review, express review, coordinated review, and specialized programs such as malls and restaurants. Differentiated service pathways allow us to improve the customer experience. Faster approvals for simple projects, deeper coordination for complex developments, and focus our resources on those complex projects. This allows us to be efficient in our use of city resources. The goal is predictable, transparent and efficient, permitting that supports development while maintaining minimum safety standards for a safe built environment. San Jose, like all cities, is defined by the geography and the land within it. The built environment is literally the foundation for all the work the city does. Codes and standards are developed through the code adoption process to create greater community safety over time, many requirements were implemented following tragic events that resulted in loss of life or financial burden, including earthquakes, fires, structural failures, hazardous materials incidents, etc. The code enhancements are meant to maintain community safety as we continue to grow denser, the requirements that we have improved safety over time. to upgrade. But when the life of a building or a development goes through its cycle and it ends up needing a redevelopment or major renovation, that's when these codes take effect and have a result in overall improved safety for our built environment. Built environment codes and standards provide equitable safety protections for all communities, including those that have historically been underserved or marginalized. Other codes and standards were developed to work together, fostering a sense of community and uniformity. Codes and standards adopted by City Council add value to the community. These standards ensure that all residents benefit from modern improvements, regardless of neighborhood or income level. Over my 25 plus years with the city, I have consistently seen different councils and departments focus on creating positive change for our businesses and community. I have never seen a department or a council try to create a barrier or increase the costs. Whether it is creating a consistent built environment, reducing new business start up costs or preventing costly losses to life of life and property or the environment, they have all focused on making San Jose a better place to live and work. Today, our permitting priorities focus on increased community safety at the core, reducing unsheltered homelessness, cleaning up our neighborhoods by creating public spaces such as parks and well-maintained private property for compatibility and safety to ensure long term vibrancy. Building more housing you. Back to me again. All right. Thanks, chief. So what I wanted to do in this section is just step back and frame the scale and scope of the development permitting continuum from two perspectives. So the city perspective and the development community's perspective. Because if we're going to have a serious conversation about timelines, predictability and accountability, we need to start from a shared understanding of what that full process actually is. So this is called a Sankey diagram. It's intentionally complex. It helps show the sheer scale of the permitting system across planning, building, public works and fire. We issue more than 36,000 permits a year, the largest share of that volume is on the simpler end of the spectrum. So smaller permits for things like water heaters, roofs and similar work. Many of those can now be self- issued online by a customer at home without interacting with staff at all. At the other end of that spectrum are the far fewer, but much more complex projects involving entitlements, CEQA, and significant coordination across departments and in conjunction with other outside agencies. What this slide is really intended to show is that these projects move through very different pathways. So as complexity increases, the volume drops off significantly, but the time coordination and number of steps in the process all increase. The most complex projects, particularly those involving land use changes or significant environmental impacts, move through the fullest pathway and can ultimately require city council approval. Each step down in complexity removes steps from that process and moves projects into a simpler approval pathway. That's also the broader direction that much of our reform work that is happening today follows, as we create new ways to permit projects including more use of ministerial pathways, we're often removing steps from the process. Sometimes things like public outreach, the ability to appeal a decision are actually being pulled out, and that can make the process faster. But it can also mean that we need to think carefully about balance and the appropriate approach that many of the stakeholders affected by these decisions. So if we simplify that prior diagram into a much more linear development continuum, it looks something like this where we move from feasibility, entitlement submittal entitlement review and approval. And then. And design and construction development into the permit submittal permit review cycles issuance, and then finally construction closeout, which includes inspection and occupancy. It's a simplified version, but it's intended to help show the basic path from an undeveloped site somewhere in the city to a point where somebody is receiving the keys on a new home or business. The important point is that these stages are not equal in length, and each one involves different decision points from either the city or the applicant. For many major development projects, this is not one event. It's a sequence of stages, decisions and iterations. Entitlement takes time. Permitting takes time. Construction takes time. There are loops where plans are revised, comments are addressed, and materials are resubmitted. And that's a normal part of the process that we deal with every day. In fact, for projects involving a land use change, it wouldn't be unusual for a new council member who's just taking office to make a decision on a general plan amendment early in their term, and then they may attend the ribbon cutting or a groundbreaking somewhere close to the end of that term. And while you know this slide may make it look like a large share of that process is often with the city or city controlled, the reality is, is that city processing time is often only a small fraction of the overall life of a project. When we look at it, it's somewhere around or under 20% of that total timeline as it's with us. So that same logic carries forward here. So as projects become more complex, they move into fuller pathways with more review, more coordination, and ultimately more time. Here you can see where most of our work actually sits. The vast majority of projects are the simpler end of the spectrum. Often remodels or tenant improvements or alterations to existing buildings, rather than major new development. And we've designed the process to reflect that demand by reducing the number of touchpoints for the smallest or the simplest projects. In many cases, customers can move straight through to permit issuance do the work and have that work verified in the field by our inspection teams. So in practice, we deploy city resources almost inverse to this diagram. The highest touch process is usually reserved for the fewest number of projects, while the largest share of projects move through a much simpler, simpler approval pathway. And that's really the point of the system design is to align our level of review with the complexity and ultimately the risk associated with the project, rather than treating every permit like it needs the same level of review and process. So this slide is intended just to show the simpler end of that spectrum, which is where a large share of our customers exist. So for a single family home owner, this may be a relatively modest scope of work. Something like an alteration or a repair that can often be handled through an online permit, or at most through a building permit review. In many cases, the customer can access the permit process directly from home. They get through issuance very quickly and then move into construction. With the city's role focused primarily on inspection and then verification out in the field, the important point here is that this is an intentionally lighter touch pathway. We've designed this process to reduce steps where the work is simpler and the risk is lower, and the review can be more standardized. And that helps us align the process with the actual demand that we see, while still making sure that the work is ultimately checked for safety and for code compliance. So this slide is that next step up in complexity and reflects the experience that many of our small businesses may have. These are often commercial tenant improvements in existing spaces. The customer may be able to move through the process on their own, but more often than not, they're working with an architect, a designer, or some other consultant to prepare plans and navigate the technical requirements involved. So while this is still a much simpler path than full development, it usually involves more coordination, more documentation, you know, more in-depth plans, and a greater need to make sure that those plans are right on the front end of the process. On our side, we're trying to support that experience, not just through the permit review process itself, but through added value, through facilitation, through clearer pathways, and obviously with targeted small business support for small businesses moving through the process. The goal is to make it easier for these customers to understand what's required, move through the process more smoothly and get open for business faster. And then we move up to this slide, which shows that full development continuum, which is typically what you see with multifamily housing or larger scale commercial and industrial projects. At this point, the project is no longer being carried by a single owner or a small team or a small business operator. There's usually a full team involved. It's the developer, the architect, a civil engineer, technical consultants, and often a broader set of specialists supporting the work at various different stages. That matters because these projects move through the fullest pathway and require the greatest amount of coordination, both on the applicant side between those various teams, but then also on our side as the city, they can involve obviously entitlement environment environmental review, multiple rounds of permit review and extensive interdependent interdepartmental coordination before the project ever reaches construction. And to that earlier point, we're not talking about one permit process. We're talking about a range of pathways with different levels of complexity, different customer needs, and a different a very different demand on staff time and expertise. So to make it even more complex, this is how we think about it in the context of our work and the interdependency between the various teams in City Hall. So during the entitlement phase, planning usually plays the lead as the city's project manager, but other departments are already involved to help identify downstream requirements early in the process. It matters because if something needs to change, it's far better to catch it in the entitlement in order to reduce those surprises later in the process. When changes are more difficult, often more expensive and more disruptive to the overall timeline after entitlement, building, fire and public works move forward. In a related but much more independent way. They're often connected, but they don't always move in lockstep, and these swim lanes don't actually line up perfectly, as the diagram would suggest in real life. In fact, for most post entitlement work, it would probably be more accurate if you were to sort of slant all of those swim lanes to the left, because a lot of that technical coordination begins earlier than the diagram would suggest. At the same time, we're often using that building permit issuance as a major checkpoint for requirements that may come from other departments or other review teams or other parts of the process. Because it's such a clear procedural milestone. But that's shifting, right? As we continue to expand new approaches, like looking at collecting fees at final inspection or occupancy, rather than sort of these checkpoints earlier in the process. And we also have to think through new ways to think about how these swim lanes align and how we track projects and requirements across a full development lifecycle. So from the city side, it's not just one review. Moving neatly from left to right down the continuum. It's a coordinated system of overlapping responsibilities that has to function as one process from the customer perspective. To give you a sense of that customer perspective, it's even more complex than what we deal with. Obviously, there are considerable considerable amount of moving parts on the development side as well, and this slide is not intended to walk through every single detail on the applicant side. It's really here to make the broader point that the interdependency in this process is not just between the city departments. There's also a whole network of partners on the private side helping to move projects forward, including the developers, the architects, the engineers different consultants contractors all working at different points along that same continuum in partnership with our team. The key takeaway is that a successful project delivery depends on communication and coordination across all of those players, not just on the city side, but between the city and that full development team. The more complex the project, the more important that coordination becomes. So this slide is really meant to reinforce that development is a shared process across both sides of the continuum, and the outcomes are shaped by how well all sides move together through the system. So next, we wanted to give you a customer perspective on this. So I would like to introduce Sumita Thukral who's from Prologis, who is not only one of the city's largest industrial property owners, but one of the country's largest industrial property owners. And just to give a little context, we've asked our development partners to give some context of their experience, and we sort of posed these three questions of kind of what's working well, what could be improved, and then what is their experience been in other cities? Thank you. Chris. Vice mayor, council members, and everybody else. Thank you for having me here. My name is Sumedha Thukral. I serve as vice president of investments at Prologis. We're honored to be here today to share our feedback. For those of you who don't know, Prologis is a publicly traded real estate investment trust. As Chris said, we are one of the largest real estate companies in the world. We were founded in the Bay area 40 years ago and have had a long standing presence in San Jose. Today, our portfolio in San Jose includes over 40 properties, approximately three point 5,000,000ft2. That serve over 100 customers. We also have two projects active development projects, that are under construction in San Jose, and we have four projects in different stages of entitlements. And finally, we're proud to be San Jose's partner, selected partner for the Plant Lands Project. So as Chris said, I will briefly speak about what has been working well, what has created some friction, and also provides some suggestions based on what we've seen. Some of the other Silicon Valley cities do. So here's what's working. Well, first of all, in most of our in all our projects, we've had early integrated meetings that bring together the planning department environmental planning, the building department, as well as fire. These have been extremely helpful because they provided us clear guidance. We've been able to surface potential channel challenges pretty, very early in the process, and it's helped everybody be in a room together and really know exactly what elements of the project will potentially be on the critical path. Secondly, the role of development facilitation Officer and Jorge has been our recent development Facilitation Officer. This has been a very useful person to have on the team. He's our single point of contact that helps us identify who we need to talk to in which department, and then he helps connect us to that person. This has allowed really allowed us to reduce the friction and the whole process. And then thirdly, the overall responsiveness of everybody on the team, from Chris to Munira to the person doing the inspection on site has just been A- plus. have been extremely responsive. So we really appreciate that. With that said, some of the things that have created some friction for us in our projects, mostly focused on the building permit process. So number one, the building permit application appointments, there are a few months out if you try to book an appointment. So that's one thing that that we would identify as an area of improvement to, to shorten that time period. Number two, when we receive comments, it can often be a lengthy process and it requires coordination with different departments, which can be time consuming. And, and three, the building permit portal. Right now, the project docs section of that will only allow one representative of the applicant to upload information. So this creates a bottleneck for our teams and feels like something that hopefully the city can solve pretty easily. And then finally, a few suggestions on what we've seen done in other cities that we think would be helpful for San Jose to adopt. Number one. So in the building permit process, we would ask that you consider having regular cross-department review meetings, which can help resolve comments. They can avoid conflicts between comments between different departments. And it also makes it a little less frictionless for us to reach out to different departments and have them coordinate. Number two, consider having a set fixed, coordinated response time. There are other Silicon Valley cities that have adopted this approach and it's helped create more predictability, which, as you all know, is extremely valuable to developers and investors. And three, we would suggest having a centralized help desk, which can help troubleshoot any problems that come up with the portal. And number four, as technology changes rapidly, this creates different land uses, which don't always perfectly sit within the existing land use and permitting structures. So we would highly encourage the city to find ways to adapt its land use and permitting framework in a in a safe and thoughtful way to support economic development and investment in San Jose. And then finally, I just want to end with a case study of what we consider a huge success in which we partnered with the city. Here we. Last fall, we applied for planning approval for a highly complex R&D project in the city of San Jose. And from the day we submitted the application, we received final approval in just 91 days. This was half the time that the city team had said it would take for us to get the approval and a huge success, and that allowed us to maintain a very aggressive timeline to bring a valued customer into the city of San Jose. And I just want to specifically thank the team members that played a key role in making this happen. Thank you so much, Chris Burton, Joe Sordi, Manira Sandhir. Renisha. Lisa Joyner, Frank Cocito, David Keon, Reema Mahmood, James Dobson, and Jagdeep, thank you, all of you. this happen. And we really look forward to our continued investment and collaboration in the city of San Jose. Thank you. All. Lisa Joyner, deputy Director of the Building Division. And I'm going to touch on our different pathways that we have and then speak about our affordable housing process. So San Jose serves a wide spectrum of projects, from quick online permits to major development proposals, tailored service pathways allow the city to match the level of review, coordination and customer support to the needs of each project. Using multiple service pathways improves customer experience, supports faster delivery where appropriate, and allows city resources to be focused where they add the most value. So we have many different service lines to help our customers. This is not an exhaustive list of the pathways provided, but it highlights the different customer needs and types of service lines created to assist them. The majority of the applications submitted for building permits are for smaller residential projects, such as ADUs, and work on single family residences, so we have several options to assist these applicants. Adu allies are available to help homeowners navigate the laws and processes around building ADUs, and we have staff available for reviews at the Counter Express Review appointments and our newer Best Prepared Designer program, all focused on helping smaller additions and remodel projects get into construction faster. For commercial projects, we have our small business allies to support small business owners through the process of opening their businesses. The streamlined restaurant program, designed to help restaurant owners through the permitting process, and star an appointment based review program with a dedicated review team focused on office and industrial use. Tenant improvements and existing commercial buildings. A few years ago, we started receiving applications for new construction multifamily projects with a very distinct need. They absolutely had to have their permits issued in 4 to 6 months. These projects received state tax credits to construct affordable housing, and with that came very strict timelines for permit issuance and construction activities. We knew we had to create a path to prioritize these projects to advance the building, more housing focused area and housing element goals. These projects also involve multiple departments and technical disciplines, so creating a specialized, coordinated path was important to resolve any issues earlier and to provide a predictable route and timetable from entitlement to building permit. We look to our existing processes and programs and lessons learned over the years, and created a streamlined path for affordable housing projects. So we're using the recent Gateway Tower project to illustrate the affordable, housing streamlined pathway. This project is larger than most at 15 stories and 220 units, but it's representative of the success of the program. The typical permit process that we all know is the project is submitted. We review per our standard timelines and send comments. Some unknown time later, the design team resubmits and we repeat the cycle until permit issuance. This can take anywhere from 6 to 24 months for a multifamily project. For affordable housing projects, we know the expected submittal date and the state required permit issuance date. In Gateway Towers case, they were submitting plans in mid June 2025 and had a deadline of the end of January for permits. We take those dates and create a fairly equitable schedule as seen on the timeline graphic. That accounts for multiple resubmittal and outlines the dates. The city team will provide comments and the dates when the design team will resubmit. The schedule is shared with all stakeholders to ensure buy in and transparency. And once we have confirmation that both sides agree the project is underway. With this partnership, both sides adhered to the schedule and all technical reviews for the project were completed by January 23rd this year, exactly on time for the original dates given out of more than 20 affordable housing projects processed through this method, not one has missed the state funding deadline. While this model has been very successful for affordable housing project, it does have its downsides and honestly doesn't work for all projects. Because I know you're thinking, great, let's do this on on all the big projects. Prioritizing projects, even ones as important as these, has the effect of pushing other projects further down the line, potentially delaying. them. At one point we had four affordable housing projects in review at the same time with similar schedules. Each review discipline only has so many reviewers, so when this happens, delay for others is inevitable. The streamlined pathway is also incredibly resource heavy and requires significant internal coordination to ensure projects don't overlap, and that there is staff available to complete the scheduled work. We've also attempted to apply the same process to other non affordable housing projects on stated timelines, and it simply hasn't worked without the external force of the state deadline or a reason for the permit date. Our experience has been that while the schedule is initially agreed to, the developer and design team are not as incentivized to keep up with a more aggressive schedule and it starts to slip. This requires more frequent schedule rework, which has a ripple effect to all other projects. And so now I'm going to invite Chris Neil with the core companies to come on down and give us an outside perspective on the affordable housing process, permit process. Good afternoon everybody. Chris Neil, president of the Core companies we've been developing in San Jose for over 40 years, probably developed over 4000 total homes in San Jose, over 2500 tax credit, affordable homes in San Jose. And I would like to acknowledge the city of San Jose and the building department for the great job they did with Gateway Tower. I wish I could tell you that we're under construction right now, but we're now dealing with a financing challenge with the state. So I think it's a good example of there are so many different milestones. The complexity of tax credit, affordable housing and the different funding sources is so complex. We need a whole study session just to go over that. But I will acknowledge the fact that there is a use it or lose it element when you receive an allocation. And so I think that becomes a great tool and resource for developer and a team to work together to try to get things, you know, started on time at a couple high levels. I think, you know, what is what is working well. So with the benefit of being in San Jose for such a long time, 25 to 30 years ago, I remember there was a very clear message from the mayor and the city council. So this was pre 2000 of the importance of housing to San Jose. And there was a goal to create 10,000 units in in a short period of time. I think the clear message that has come forth from the City Council, the mayor and the rest of the city leadership of the importance of housing has been critical to the ability to harness that and get more projects through the process. So that's been a great resource. And the repeating element of that, it helps staff prioritize when they come in to work today in any day, and they have too many things to do. It helps them to prioritize the work. So that's been very the clear messaging has been very helpful. What I've also found in speaking to our team, the planning staff, there is a clear leader who's a partner in the process and has a vested interest in the schedule. It's all about driving schedule. And so having a partner in the city as your guide through the vast departments has been very helpful through the process. You know what's not been working well. There's so much coordination that's required for these projects. New buildings are so complicated. One challenge has been in trying to coordinate with the public works process, you know, Gateway Tower, for example. We're still trying to work on our permit. We're through the fifth or sixth round of plan, check comments for public works and new issues are coming up. So I want to acknowledge the the city staff on trying to work through these issues with us. However, from a biased point of view, I don't know how we could be so late in the game and new issues coming up at the last minute. So I think the coordination and early review of the plans, and I don't know why new things come up so far down the process. So I think just while there's good coordination, I think there's room for improved coordination. I think there's also great policy direction from the council to help advance projects. But we're solving it with exceptionally complicated processes, which take time, which take time from staff who don't have the time, which require additional consultants to to bring into the process. You know, an example is the park fee waiver process. There's a good process in place for affordable housing to get waivers for other types of priority projects to get waivers, but the process to secure those is very, very complicated, requires a lot of support from civil engineers, landscape architects. And there's in some ways, there's almost a perception that the fee waiver is not wanted to be given, right? You really have to work hard to earn it. And so I think it's just it's created a very complicated, difficult process. So, you know, simplicity, I think, again, from a biased point of view as a developer trying to get the project started, simple processes that get the desired outcome would be very helpful. And then the last couple items, what are, what are other cities doing? One issue we encountered with Gateway Tower, if San Jose wants to go tall in the downtown. Coordinated with utilities is exceptionally important. We had a moment towards the latter part of our project where PG&E was requiring us to above ground our transformers, and we had to walk around all the projects within the, you know, the Sofa district and demonstrate all these other projects that had gone through before us that were able to put their transformers underground. I think PG&E process or their risk tolerance has changed over time. And what we've learned through the process is other cities have an ordinance that require transformers for high density projects in the downtown to be undergrounded. And I think that's something that PG&E is looking forward to give the approval. So we did get the approval. They do allow it, but it took extra months, extra costs. So the time delay and the cost delay to solve that problem, you know, was really unnecessary because as we demonstrated, many other urban cities in the Bay area, the process already allows it. And then the last item I would highlight is, again, in high rise, we've had to design a redundant fire prevention system. It's called the fire air replenishment system. It's a city ordinance from 20 to 25 years ago, maybe longer. That requires a certain fresh air system up in the system. It's only required in San Jose. It's not required in other cities, and it's required an extra $1.5 million cost to Gateway Tower for providing really what is truly a redundant fire protection system. But since it's included in the City of San Jose ordinance, it was something that we were we were required to include in the project. But I do want to highlight that I think, you know, we have almost a thousand units in process. We've processed projects using SB 30 with the planning department, and I definitely want to acknowledge there's been improvement in place, the guides within the city to help advance projects has been really helpful, and we look forward to seeing you all at the at the groundbreaking for Gateway Tower, one of these coming months, pretty soon. Thank you very much. Thank you Chris. Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and council members. Cynthia, deputy director for planning. I think that marks a perfect segue into our next section, which is focused on what drives time to completion, where time is added and where time is reduced. All right. So first we set the groundwork on why permitting timelines matter right? As we all know, timelines are very important and critical for any kind of project that we do, whether it's in the development world or elsewhere. But in permitting, it really matters because it drives project feasibility. As we heard from our previous speaker, you know, timelines can directly affect the financing, the carrying costs, and whether a project moves forward at all. Applicants are constantly looking at their performers and developing and constantly balancing the time that it will take to build a project. And, and, you know, have it occupied in response to all the market demands and make sure that they're able to get a return on their investment. Permitting timelines also shape the coordination across teams. So as Chris showed earlier in one of his slides in the applicant side, there are a number of teams that are actively working on these projects, and perhaps they might be waiting on the entitlements to come through so that they can start working on the actual construction drawings. And so depending on when the approvals are expected, it can really affect the timelines across these teams. Of course, timelines affects affect costs, and risk delays can increase construction costs, extend schedules and introduce uncertainty. I know the markets, the construction markets are also constantly evolving and looking at faster construction methods and construction types to address these kind of concerns. Permitting timelines affect the delivery of housing and services. And also in addition to that, looking at delivery of infrastructure safety improvements and community benefits that can that can help the public. And finally, timelines operate within a structured but very complex system. So as Chris pointed out, there are so many layers in this process. The state law that sets expectations. But timelines ultimately reflect the project's complexity and coordination across multiple requirements. I feel like ultimately permitting timelines matter because they can define whether a city is pro- development or not. And I think in San Jose, what we want to be known as and perhaps are known as is that we're a very development friendly city. In this section, I'll guide you through how time gets reduced in this permitting process. I know that was mentioned about better applications, applications on the front end or early issue identification, such as. Samantha mentioned that early integrated comments that early engagement can really help identify red flags or yellow flags that can ascertain how a project evolves. If you start right, it's easier to get to the finish line. I know Chris says this often that if an applicant submits the project right the first time, we'll approve it. The first time. Parallel review where possible. So this is something, you know, that if if an applicant or the team knows what the critical path is, we can build in other things around that. We can do concurrent reviews to make sure that the ball is moving down the field, and that we can get the project to the finish line. Clear correction comments and disciplined submittals. I think both the city's team and the applicants take responsibility in this one. And again, our role as the city's to really make sure that our comments are clear, that we explain the reasons for them, and then the applicants are clear on what they need to submit that can help them achieve their goals. Creating standardization across our process creates that predictability and transparency for our applicants as well as for staff. So we constantly look at creating tools such as tech checklists handbooks. We actually have our SQL handbook coming to Planning Commission and Council shortly. Templates that can help provide that predictability and provide that guidance to our applicants. Early on, we look at creating project tracking information and setting expectations with timelines for staff. So everybody's on the same page on when to expect comments. And then also standardizing our interpretations. And, you know, the more objective and clear the standards and requirements are, the easier it is to address those comments. And so we're constantly making this effort to standardize our process. And that reduces time. Technology, and transparency. I think this is a big one that, you know, the pandemic overturned on its head. As you guys may recall, there were times when we used to have these massive rolls of sheets of paper, of plan sets that used to go from department to department to individual development review team members for their reviews. And now we have it all digitized. People can submit, you know, from their from their homes in the middle of the night, if they so choose to the city. We can do concurrent reviews across the development partners. And all of these things have really helped reduce that time that goes into this, this permitting process. And also save some trees along the way. And then finally triaging in differentiated services. So the our development facilitation officers got a shout out earlier. And we do try to identify ways to triage early to create differentiated services for those high priority projects that are that lie within our focus areas, so that we can reduce the time that goes into these applications. However, with the caveat, as Lisa pointed out earlier, that if everything becomes a priority, then nothing gets priority. So we really try to focus it on those critical focus area projects. All right. Where time gets added. So I think of this as opportunity areas, right? So where time is added, what are the things that we could do to improve our permitting process? Some of the things that drive where time is added is related to project complexity. So again, in the development continuum that Chris showed a project that requires an annexation or a general plan amendment has to start at the very front end of the process versus a water heater permit that is much more rote and can be done online, takes 15 minutes to issue. That can be at the very end of the process. And so we have this, this broad continuum between all of those different steps that can that can happen. And ultimately, when you do a project like an annexation or a general plan amendment, the reason it has to start early is because the stakes are higher, because council may want to weigh in on those projects, because perhaps it impacts city services. And perhaps, you know, the council may want to look at whether that's the right location that the city wants to annex or not. Similarly, for land use and environmental requirements, this is, again, something that drives where time is added. And again, it really depends on the values that the council and the community wants to see and can drive the process. The next two items application quality and readiness, as well as the review cycles and redesign, are typically in the applicant's court. So, you know, is the has the developer done their due diligence on whether this is the right site for a project that they are seeking? Is it really going to be provide them the return on their investment? Are they ready? Are they aligned with the markets and the timelines for when they will be building and delivering that project? Similarly, the review cycles and redesign, do they understand staff's comments? Have they addressed them fully so that we can move quickly and issue the permits as expeditiously as possible? Public outreach and engagement. That includes things like noticing public hearings, really providing the public and the community and the neighbors to weigh in and provide their input on a project. And again, this is to allow for that early engagement and provide the community an opportunity to perhaps influence a project outcome and make for a better community, multi-agency and multi-discipline coordination. We've covered that already. You saw the big chart. It's not just the city department's, the core department, but also regionally and the state that drives a lot of the time that is added, I know Chris shared the example of the state coordination that's going on right now, and sometimes that can be the critical path if you need permits from the state, maybe that is the longest path in the process. Not really the city's path, but again that multi coordination and and engagement is necessary to keep the ball moving capacity and workflow constraints. I think we've already touched on this as well. This is if you have one planner doing one project that can move much faster than if you have one planet doing 20 projects. So again, we are constantly evaluating what kind of capacity we have within the different teams. And then finally the construction phase realities. So, you know, the, the market can be an unpredictable aspect, can have an unpredictable aspect to it. And again, the development community is constantly trying to, to weigh in on how the markets will evolve over several years, especially comes into play when you have bigger projects or phased projects, such as the Sealy development, where you have multi developers building different aspects of the project. And that can really add time because each of them has to come forward with their own permit reviews. So in addition to managing timelines at the local level, we also have to keep in mind several state laws that dictate the permitting timelines, including for housing. So maybe all familiar with the Permit Streamlining Act. There's also the sequel process in the middle at the entitlement review stage, we have some new state laws that streamline this process. We have Permit streamlining Act that also determines when a project must receive its approval after CEQA is complete, and more recently, we're seeing the state weigh in further on creating timelines associated with the building permitting process as well. So there's AB2 53, for example, that allows projects to use third party review. If local building department review takes longer than 30 days. So you see this shift with the state coming in as well and putting these kind of shot clocks on certain kinds of projects. And of course, this is state mandated prioritization. So we have to devote resources to these priority efforts as well to make sure that we can comply with the legal mandates. Oh, did I miss? Okay. So given. This framework, you know, staff is constantly looking at regulatory and programmatic changes that can remove steps in the process and really reduce time from the process. So if you look at the, the early parts of project feasibility, we've created a number of programs such as the multifamily incentive program, or we've done cost of development studies. We have the Housing Site Explorer or a preliminary process available to the applicants that can help them determine early whether their project is even feasible or not. Are there red flags? Are these programs that can help them meet their financing needs and that can drive then them to determine whether they're a go or a no go? In the entitlement stages, we have a number of different state law changes that allow for these projects to move forward. But at the local level, we are also exploring and have implemented city ministerial processes and are looking at standardizing our conditions and thresholds. We are constantly looking to tear our environmental documents so we don't have to write a new environmental impact report every time, which can be an extensive and extensive endeavor. And then similarly, on the building side, we have created a number of service delivery pathways that Lisa mentioned earlier, such as coordinated review across different departments. The SGA plans the Star program, the best prepared designer program, as well as the streamlined restaurant program. And finally, when you come to construction closeout and Chris mentioned this earlier, we are now looking at deferring fees to occupancy instead of to the building permit issuance. And that allows for projects to perhaps start construction and really get that financing. They need to break ground. So ultimately, as you know, Sean, across all of these different slides, there are three types of time with any project. So the first category of time is the time that is required by law or policy. It reflects the critical priorities, whether that's at the state level with the state housing laws, protection of the environment through CEQA, community engagement processes, through noticing and hearings, and a process for appeal. Regulatory steps that allow for public health and safety to be met. Entitlement conformance review and life safety review. Category two is the time driven by project specific choices, and a lot of that ultimately resides with the applicants and the developers. So I think the biggest one out of that is probably where is the project being located? Because if you locate the project in the right place where it's allowed by right, perhaps you don't have to start from the very first step in the process. But if you are locating something that requires a general plan amendment, if the applicant chooses to redesign the project or the scope creep if the plans are submittals are incomplete. If there are complex site constraints, for example, building on a landfill site, because now you have to meet additional state and environmental health requirements. Financing driven decisions, as well as the consultant coordination issues. Those can be really affecting some of the time that that that can lead to project delays. And then finally, and this is where we like to focus a lot, is the category three of time, which is the time the city can improve. I think we're constantly looking at opportunities where we can move the needle where it makes sense, without compromising on what the city and the community values. So I'll touch on all of these in just a minute. In the next slide. So we have a number of efforts underway, works in progress that are looking to improve these areas. So the first one is looking at our intake quality control. We actually did website updates. I know we have a number of checklists that we use to, to manage our intakes. We coordinate interdepartmentally, and I know we do that at all levels. So we have staff talking to staff from different departments, but we also have the leaders talking to each other. And we make sure that there's consistency across the board in the comments that we are providing common consistency. I mentioned that already, but part of that is also tied to onboarding and training. So when we have new staff, we want to make sure that they understand the city's approach to, to comments and that, you know, we try to avoid new comments. As was mentioned in one of the commenters. And we certainly go back and look at that project and see how we can improve that queue management, project prioritization. I think affordable housing is one of the key ones that we have been able to effectively prioritize, given that it's a partnership between the city as well as the developer with the strict timelines staffing deployment you know, we are constantly looking at predicting what kind of development is coming in, what are the projects that are coming in. We evaluate trends over a multi-year horizon to see whether we expect more projects, more difficult and complex projects to come in. I think our next big wave might be SB 79 projects, so we are constantly evaluating what kind of projects may be coming in through the door, so we can staff up or down as appropriate service pathways. So we have the special programs, our development facilitation officers. We have two new two new ones added to Jo's team. So now we have a full team that's supporting different kinds of projects. And then finally the digital workflow improvements, looking at making technology investments that continue to take us and propel us into the next decades. I think with that, I don't think we were able to find. So we actually our slide didn't get updated. So we'd love to introduce Ryan McNamara with Summerhill Homes. You may know or maybe aware of their current project at 210 Bay Point in District four, but also Summerhill are working on a number of projects throughout the city. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Brian McNamara with Summerhill Homes, VP of development. For anybody that may not be familiar with us, we are a private residential development company focused in core Bay area. Over the past 50 years, we've done about 7000 units across the Bay area. A little less than a thousand of those have been here in San Jose over 19 projects. We do have two projects under construction right now, and I'm sure many more to come. Again, thank you for having me here today. I do want to commend the city and staff on two things. As I was talking to other people in my office that the city does really well, as Munira just exemplified, your staff has a really great understanding of state housing laws and their ever changing state housing laws. We don't see that in a lot of jurisdictions, so that really helps us. It helps the city make the process so much more smoother. Secondly, the city's inclusionary housing program, I think is amazing. It's very complete, it's thorough, but it's also flexible. And we don't see that in all jurisdictions all the time. So that really helps us with predictability, which is a key word here tonight. And making projects feasible and moving forward. So back to predictability as we go through any stage of our development process, we need predictability on timing and costs and example of the city doing a great job with the ministerial approval process that they've implemented. That really helps us understand timelines and risk profiles to ensure that projects get done on timeframes that we represent to our board. Communication for predictability of timing is pretty key to resolving any issues on either side of the table that we might have. And staff does a really great job of responding to our emails, providing draft conditions ahead of time so that we have time to review and talk about those and getting us the information that we need. One thing that I've seen done in other cities even recently is during the entitlement process, the planner will have a once a week check in just for 30 minutes. It can be five minutes, maybe it's a little bit longer depending on the issues, but that really gives us visibility into what is going on on the city side. And so that we can relay that back to our partners and feel really good about how the project is moving. Forward. One area of potential improvement is around fees. So the city's fee schedule, I would say, is confusing, particularly to the layperson. As you go through it. Under any permit, there's often ancillary fees that you might not catch. And as we're setting our budgets early on, if we miss that, it can be pretty stressful to the project at later stages in time to the extent that there can be examples of fee calculations, example of permit fees within one permit that we can follow, that allows us to predict those. It allows us to run fee calculations on our own and not bother staff time with our questions on that. As we're running multiple scenarios of any development. Cover everything on my list. Yeah, I think I did. Again, we love working in the city of San Jose and look forward to many more projects and really enjoy working with staff. So thank you again for having. Me. Good afternoon, Vice Mayor and Council J. Guevara, deputy director of Public Works, on that note of fees let's transition to fees and requirements. So moving from timelines to what is built in the public realm. We find that the permit process ensures that projects deliver the kind of city that we enjoy, a city we feel welcomed, safe and enlivened in because of the consistent experience of the felt place. This includes all the built things that make a property fit and work, integrate and coexist in a cohesive environment. Things like streets, sidewalks, the utilities and infrastructure that are often invisible. Public safety and access to ensure services to that property environmental performance and sequel mitigations. The neighborhood character and quality of life, and the public amenities and the community benefits. To quote Warren Buffett, price is what you pay and value is what you get. Permitting and regulatory requirements build the real world values of our city through the standards, safety, and consistent requirements that make a coherent neighborhood experience. Let me place that quote in a in a broad context, and then review these columns on the next slide. The primary costs for any project still remain. These three core drivers. Number one materials. Two labor and three land. This is in contrast to the fees and requirements that the city requires. In general, according to the recent cost of development study, city costs on the whole represent roughly 10% of the overall cost, with fees around 1%. While these are cost to a project, they pay for staff time to review and deliver the built environment. We expect all of our projects. And they expressed the values as legislated by the City Council for what we want to ensure projects consistently provide. On the leftmost column you have the fees. These are the cost of services that are cost recovery for the staff. Time to provide these expertise. Reviews that scale with the complexity and the time added. The fees are established through the budget process and they are the same hourly rate applied across all customers in the magical middle column is the example of fees that happen to also be regulatory. These are policy driven investments. That includes the aforementioned inclusionary housing, parks, fees, construction taxes, commercial linkage fees, and impact fees. These are established by council policy and applied broadly and geographically. Finally, on the right hand column, requirements that are not fees. These project requirements include development standards, the minimum safety standards, SQL mitigation, the city public right of way standards and external regulatory requirements from other jurisdictions. These are established by ordinance or resolution, and they are applied to all projects. So let's turn to the graphic where the regulatory requirements show up in the entitlements and building permit process. These span the core for development services, departments planning public works, building and fire, while they also dive deeper into the expertise of housing parks Dot and ESD to put the requirements into effect at different stages. This just gives a quick, broad overview. It does not mean to equate that any and all of these processes that they take up a certain space on the the project that they all take the same equal amount of time. Many projects can quickly expand and balloon in technical requirements and others can quickly deflate and move along their way as the project moves along in the process, be it entitlement or building. Broadly speaking. The vast majority of permits move forward on their merry way because they fit neatly in a prescribed box. We make decisions in a box because when we do, it means it's transparent and predictable. That's for our customers. And so that we can scale and staff are empowered to execute, to meet that market demand. All the way back to that lovely slide that Chris shared earlier. With over 35,000 permits at scale. But when a project might move farther afield, the regulatory framework expands to a wider level of consideration. Moving outside of that simplified city regulatory framework. As this field of consideration spreads, so does time and complexity projects that no longer fit neatly into that well-oiled machine of the city's regulatory framework expand in complexity and take farther, far more communication. That complicates an already long process. With this, we reviewed the values, the price we pay and the fee and the regulatory framework, and I'd like to invite to the podium. Dave Mulvihill to be our next customer voice. Hello, my name is David Mulvihill. I'm with Nobu Hospitality. I've got some businesses on San Pedro Square. Recent project was the Press Room restaurant on the corner of Santa Clara and Almaden. Sorry. What's working well? What works well in San Jose from a small business perspective is you have access to people. I've only done business in San Jose, so I can't compare it to other cities. But I do think we have a pretty, really strong community down here. So I think most people sitting over here, I see outside of, you know work and we have a nice personal touch downtown where if we get into gray waters on a project, we always seem to have access to people that matter to help us navigate the situations. We probably shouldn't be getting integrated waters as much as we do. Just from a small business perspective, my life's probably a lot simpler than the mechanism of a big city with a million people, but it just seems like sometimes we're, you know, there's complicated issues and set plans and stuff that don't need to be seem to be so complicated. What's working? Well, the SRP program is working well, and there's some flexibility in that too. So that normally takes any businesses 3500ft2. But if you can get into that and there's flexibility on the square footage on that, it saves us a lot of time on the project, like the press room, which is larger than 3500ft. It took us in on that. That probably saved us 2 or 3 months. To put that into perspective, like revenue and rent and all sorts of stuff. It saves like hundreds of thousands of dollars, which again small businesses, a lot. And what's not working well. And this can be gut wrenching is when we submit a set of plans, you know, you're never going to get a stamped permit back. That's not ever expected. But a lot of times we get back like comments to address. So there could be like ten comments. You sit down with your architect and your engineers and your contractor. You look at them and say, hey, well lads, what's what do you think? Okay, we can deal with this, this and this. All right. And then, you know, you send your address, the comments, you send it back in. Usually you're not going to get a stamp permit when you send your comments back in, you might, it might come back to you. Then you're down to four comments or two comments, and then you're kind of rubbing your hands and you're going, okay, we're close. What do we need to do here, lads, to get this over the line? Can this be addressed? Blah, blah, blah. And then we go, okay, I think we've got this. And then you're lining up your contract or your subcontractors. You're getting all excited, you're ready to go. You send it back in and next minute you got a new planner assigned to the assigned to the project. And then they come back with ten comments that are completely different. And that's absolutely gut wrenching. That's one of my biggest issues when I'm applying for permits. So that's that doesn't seem to be working because like we've, this is the first time we've heard of these comments and you're just totally unprepared for it. And it's happened more than once, for whatever reasons, planner might be on vacation or, you know, a new planner is assigned. If we could keep up with a formula that, hey, if someone, even if someone picks up the pieces on a project here, we're left with four comments. And this is what we focus on to get the project over the line. What are other cities doing better than us that we should consider? Like I said, I don't do too much business outside other cities. I do think if we had a way of expediting projects and obviously, you know, a magic wand with the city of one of the biggest issues with the city is staffing. But I feel like if we had a process for expediting, it might give city staff an opportunity to make overtime. So instead of it being an extra cost on the city, we actually pay more, you know, pay more when we're applying. And that way, I mean, it works well in other cities. The health department, we're doing it for a while. And then people actually, you know, like I said, some people want to make more money so they can work longer hours and actually stay focused on your project. It's not costing the city anything because we're paying more to get it expedited. So. That's one suggestion. Other than that, I think I want to keep you here all day. So I hope that's hope. That's helpful. And like I said, there's no system. I'm sure people come into my restaurant and point out what we're doing right or wrong. And I hope you find this constructive and helpful. And yeah, definitely, definitely expediting. And if we can keep on track with comments that would save us a lot of time. Thanks. Good afternoon. Alex Powell, chief of staff, planning, building and Code Enforcement. Now that we've covered much of the process, we'll focus on the technology that powers our operations. Technology and operations are deeply connected and can be described as two sides of the same coin. When we think about improving our services, the temptation is to identify a technology silver bullet. But. But technology alone without process change will lack effectiveness and sustainability. So the next section on technology aims to set a foundation for the rest of our presentation on improvements for the future. We'll start with what our technologies are. While our technology landscape is complicated, in simplified terms we have three core systems our customers and staff utilize. At the center is the Amanda permitting system, responsible for general permit tracking fee calculation file process and requirement management. It's our core legacy system that has been used for 25 years. On the left side is our public portal SJ permits.org. This website is where customers can start their application issue and download their permits for simple project types, search permits find project status, schedule inspections and pay fees, and on the right side is SJ plans or project docs. Our plan, submittal and review system also used by customers to upload their plans. View change marks and comments from staff and get even greater insights on process and timeline, including days and even hours elapsed on on each task. This is a simple architectural diagram of our IT system. The actual architectural diagram includes 23 different systems and integrations, but since this is just a snapshot of where we are today it's important to also recognize the significant effort towards digitization. Over the last five years. When you think of development services, it's easiest to think of it in a paper based way. Plans, these big rolls of paper that customers start with, print out and bring in for us to review and route it around permits, as Chris discussed, that have been printed out for over 100 years to identify what's allowed to be built on site. And finally, inspections during construction. The clipboards and paper that inspectors used to carry around and mark what they're seeing in the field. All three of these symbols of the development services process has been digitized over the last five years in operations updated to meet that digitization. And to do a deeper dive on what these systems actually do, we'll start with what our customer experience in the digital front door they encounter. First, there are 56 types of building permits that customers can apply for an issue in less than 15 minutes. As mentioned earlier in the presentation, this represents about 20,000 of the 36,000 permits that are issued via this method. Of the remaining permits, about 80% of the applications can be started online 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in contrast to just a few years ago, when customers needed to come into City Hall or make an appointment to start their applications. But beyond application processing, customers have immense access to information about permits and their process status. SJ permits allows customers to see every process and review for all permits, along with the date each staff activity is logged in. Amanda and can see the contact information for those staff members. Second, partners have created nearly 50 dashboards that provide near real time insights to the state of operations. Recognizing this much transparency can be overwhelming. The building division has created customer centric dashboards, as seen on this slide, that update customers and how long they can expect key city processes to take so they're better able to manage their projects in the process. They move through. This customer dashboard has three measures. First, showing the days to intake processing second days to the first comments in this case, for single family, residential and third days until the next available inspection. These dashboards switch to red when we don't meet our goals, and we believe having this transparency helps customer expectations and internally making clear what we need to focus our operational attention to, particularly with inspection where we currently have ten vacant positions. This need has become a priority for hiring across the department. It's important to note that this measure on inspections does not include inspection availability for large development projects, which book through our project inspection service. Since those large projects have unique needs to schedule inspections much earlier than most customers. Pivoting to the future. Our technology vision is to deliver a modern digital experience that makes permitting simple, transparent, and accessible, driving operational efficiencies for staff and clear process navigation for our customers. We're working towards systems that are intuitive to use, easy to maintain and built to grow with us. As technology involves some simple initiatives, our application wizard that uses a simple question answer format to help customers get to the appropriate permit type and resources. Second, our fee estimator tool that provides for the first time insights to what actual fees were charged for similar projects, and finally providing a clear submittal instructions to help ensure that for the first submittal as complete and correct as possible. This next slide shows that. Example. Previously on the left side shows how we've historically organized our forms and resources. But just last week, we launched a new way to organize these resources by the type of project, making sure that information is focused on the specific customer need, which will make it more likely that the customers find what they need and review all the materials, since they know that the information pertains to them. And finally, we'll focus on the future and emerging technology and how we integrate it into our existing operations. This sample of future improvements are organized by those three pillars from our technology vision for modern Digital experience. That starts with upgrading our portal to a new platform that is more user friendly and easier to maintain. Next, we can build on this more dynamic portal to integrate digital forms and file upload management that will allow customers greater online interaction with the processes in a shared space for customers and staff to interact throughout the process. This will lead to the later phase of full digital integration of our permit processes. Getting that final 20% approximately 20% of our special program projects onto the same platform once. It is easy to use for those expedited processes for operational efficiencies, we're currently focused on upgrading the inspection module that aids our inspectors to complete their digital inspection notices in the field. Next is adding new AI assisted Prescreen capabilities to our intake process to help customers submit their application packages complete the first time. This would ideally lead to AI assisted review, but recent pilots and testing by the city, in addition to discussion with vendors, has shown that the technology for this functionality does not quite exist yet. Instead, our longer term strategy is to align every partner's processes and technical structure of our improvements for better coordination and data access across the departments. Lastly, for process navigation, we will build on out that final stage of the fee estimator for residential additions. Alterations enhance the application wizard to provide greater functionality for customers who are trying to figure out how to get started. And finally to use the upgraded portal discussed before to help organize open requirements, tasks and general process orientation on the portal. To the extent that customers feel the process is clear, well managed and recognized, the portal as a single source of truth. Next, we will actually invite another speaker. The slide didn't quite make it in here. We'll invite Jennifer. Jennifer Freeman from Overton Moore to talk about her experience with the city. Hi, I'm Jennifer Friedman. I've met most of you and it's good to be up here and appreciate you guys inviting me to give you a little bit more perspective about our experience so far, working with the San Jose Planning and Building departments. I'm Jennifer Friedman with Overton Moore. I'm a vice president of development. And I guess on the starting with the what's going well, I think Chris has done a nice job, Chris and Alex, over the last year with these developer roundtables, which I've been joining. I think it's been a good way to hear the issues that other developers are dealing with, where the city is focused. Obviously, you guys are balancing a lot of different priorities. I think, as mentioned by others, the staff is very responsive, particularly at the junior levels. But oftentimes the responses are, we'll get back to you in another week from now, not with actual responses to the questions that we have and the issues that we're trying to address. But I do appreciate we just got through our entitlement process here. So I'm going to actually focus more on the entitlement component since we're just jumping in again to the building permit process. So big picture, I think there's a lot of judgment calls that get made. You guys can have the best written policies in place, but ultimately these are individuals that they have to use some discretion. And I think that in many cases in our project is one that, from our perspective, was fairly straightforward in terms of a redevelopment of an existing building using the same type of use, the same size, not increasing intensity etc. We're still sitting here 19 months after we first submitted a very thorough planning application, which I think that was deemed complete very quickly. CEQA you guys are very familiar with. It's a pretty broken process. I think there are some opportunities for you to improve that. And one of the ways that you can improve it is by doing more exemption checklists. We had a CEQA attorney very early on weigh in, send a letter, say that they thought that was a very reasonable approach here. The city declined to do it that way, and I never really understood why that was the case. From a technical perspective, as you all know, you do all of the same technical studies. You still do noise, air quality, health risk assessment and traffic. So the outcomes are no different from doing an exemption checklist in terms of what's going well, the city of Fremont, we got a 2.5 million square foot project there. Pat Commons approved in less than six months by doing an EIR addendum. Similar situation where you can do the technical studies required. You can assess reasonably if there are any mitigations that you hadn't previously thought of, but you can get through the secure process very quickly. One hiccup we ran into here that was also quite frustrating is that the planning department gives you a few SQL consultants that they want you to use, which is great. And purportedly, you guys have chosen those secret consultants with a lot of thought that those are people you trust that they're going to run this process correctly. And even once we got our izmed into the city, it took the stated timeline is a five week turnaround to review the first draft I s D, which is already quite a long time when again, you've hired an expert and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get that document into the city. In this case, and this was starting in week six. We said, where where are the comments that went on for another, it was 17 weeks in total, so we lost another four months, three months in the timeline of this process, because the senior level environmental person in the planning department hadn't had a chance to review the document, and ultimately, and again, I don't want to name names. I think everyone who works in the city is very nice and is trying to do the right thing, but it's just insane because the outcome didn't change. There were no new mitigations. The comments that took an extra three months to make were completely stylistic, and semantic in nature. It didn't actually change the content of the izmed, so we lost three months there. So here we are today. As you know, it's raining today. It's the end of the rainy season. We are trying to get to a demo permit and a grading permit, and we've been told this was last week that oftentimes, and again, we've we have some off sites, very minor off sites that sometimes it takes a year to a year and a half to get public works to review and approve your off site plans. I just heard this last week and my mind imploded and. Luckily I think we are not going to take a year to a year and a half to get our off site intersection approved. But again these timelines are just outrageous. And again, don't change the outcome. So when everyone here who again, I think has very good intentions, talks about fees, our fees from a career perspective, were spending $60,000 a month to carry this project between taxes, insurance and security, which you all heard. My sad story that because we have homeless encampments and fires and all of the electrical infrastructure pulled out of our building, we have to pay for fire watch like a human to be there to make sure the building doesn't burn down. And again, judgment calls. So I understand the city probably has been burned in the past where you had a vacant lot that someone never built on, and you don't want to see that. But in this case, having the building there is actually more of a detriment to the city. And so again, trying to get through these processes faster would be a lot more helpful to the development community. And then again, with the judgment calls, I'll just give two other quick examples. So when again, staff is given the opportunity to choose sort of the more most conservative, I don't want to get in trouble for making the wrong decision, decision or the yes, that is reasonable. Let's make that decision. conservative. That might take you another nine months, but let's do that decision as it relates to getting a regulatory agency involved on a on a non-issue environmental issue. Luckily, we got a no further action needed. So we have now dodged an additional nine months to our project or just small decisions like changing the curb cut of a changing the excuse me, like the radii of the curb cut for our driveway because it makes the most sense for trucks entering and exiting. And again, we had to have, I think, 2 or 3 meetings, including multiple people from public works, multiple people from d o t to make this very minor decision. Council Member Cohen knows that. I early on said, I want to save the 19 trees that are on our frontage, that are on a street that is a dead end, but that's not, you know, whether this was an oversight, but it doesn't feel like there's anyone on staff who can make the the judgment call that, yes, that's reasonable. Let's save those trees. Because instead I have on my, my schedule here, my street plan here that you have to replace all the trees here and do a protected bike lane, which is again, a dead end street with very few bikes. So sorry to sound negative. I'm not trying to. I think everyone here wants to do the right thing. But look, San Jose, you guys have it. Have everything here. You have power. Everyone wants to be here. You have a great location. Like you could be building so many and pulling so many more high tech businesses. We have had so many calls on our project over the last 19 months, and haven't been able to tell them when we can deliver a building. So it's a very difficult conversation. Now I finally feel like we have some clarity but again, you want to talk about fees. We've added nearly $1 million of carry costs because now where we are right and losing time with SQL reviews and other things, we have to wait till the next through the next rainy season before we can actually grade and start building the building. So I think, I'm not sure how to institutionalize that mindset of helping staff make these tough judgment calls. But from my perspective, and I understand, right, we have to make we all have to make judgment calls all the time, but it feels like people are afraid of making the wrong decision. So they always make the most conservative, most time consuming, most expensive decision. And it makes it hard to do business here. And we want to do more here. So I think I've said my piece on that. Like I said, I think Fremont has done an amazing job. We've developed, you know, 3,000,000ft2 there. We would love to do more there. They just take such a perspective of we want you to be here. And they've really thrived as a result. We've also had really good experiences with the city of Livermore, where it feels, again, like a real partnership and that there's some human you can call to get things going. When you have hiccups with the building department, you have hiccups with public works. Those things are going to happen, but that there's reasonable people, reasonable people who want to help you first and foremost, get your project done. So thank you for listening. I'd be happy any time to chat with anyone more, but thank you for inviting me again. I think you guys are all trying to do the right thing, and I know you guys all want San Jose to thrive, so let's build a 130,000 square foot warehouse building or excuse me, advanced manufacturing building and have it not take three years to break ground. That is all. Thank you. Thanks, Jennifer. Okay. Making sure that we didn't give you all the good news. All right, so almost there. Thank you for your patience. So I do want to close by talking about sort of continuous improvement and how we're working to get better, because this is really where the conversation turns from describing the system to, you know, ultimately improving it. And I think it's important to say at the outset that, you know, San Jose is not standing still here as a team. We're already taking on a significant amount of work and we have it underway. And we're building from a foundation that's very real and based in those types of experiences, and not just the kind of theoretical. So I do want to just point out, we do stay in regular contact with PR agencies across California through discussions with The officials and directors for planning and building public works and fire. It's obviously challenging to sometimes compare ourselves to smaller cities in the surrounding area. You know, just given the scale, their diversity and the complexity of the range of projects that we deal with. But we do stay in touch with all of our partner agencies locally, as well as all the other big cities across the state. Right the way through to, you know, various different state agencies as well. And we stay very current on best practices. And exchange ideas with those jurisdictions who are all facing very similar issues. And what we're hearing from those conversations is that many of the themes emerging across the state are the same ones that we're already focused on here. But our front end application quality, stronger coordination, faster review where possible, and greater transparency and predictability for our customers. You know, we already have real strengths within our team to build on. We have a coordinated review process for affordable housing with those structured timelines that Lisa described. You know, we've talked a little bit about our development facilitation team that we've continued to expand, and that provides that clear point of contact for those complex projects. We're doing, you know, early design feedback that helps reduce late stage redesign. We have tools like our development tracker and others that improve internal visibility into major projects. And they're not small things. They take a considerable amount of coordination and they're meaningful pieces of a stronger delivery system that we already have in place. But as we talk about improvement, the point is not that we're starting from scratch, it's that we've built on this solid foundation in a number of areas, and that that next step is to extend those strengths more consistently across the system and make it more visible to more of our customers. As you've heard directly from our customers as well. At the same time, we do have clear gaps and there is a lot to work on, and I think it's important to be direct about that. You know, our best practices aren't applied consistently across all types of projects. We're not always consistent in our comments or approach, even within the same project. Customer visibility into process and status is still more limited than it should be. Coordination across departments isn't always as visible to applicants even though that coordination is happening internally and there can be a gap between our actual internal performance and how that process is experienced from the outside and by our customers. And that last point really matters. Even when staff are doing the work and doing it the right way. If customers can't see where they are in the process or don't understand you know what comes next or how we're reaching decisions, or they can't tell how departments are coordinating around them, then the system will still feel more opaque and more frustrating than it needs to be. And so a big part of that work ahead is not just improving performance but improving clarity, consistency and visibility. So when you put those strengths and gaps together, the near- term agenda becomes becomes very clear. Central to this effort, as Jennifer mentioned earlier, will be the development services delivery, optimization and realignment work that the city manager has initiated. And through this, we're focused on strengthening coordination across the departments, making it easier for applicants to understand our requirements and submit complete applications. The first time. Continuing to improve the portion of the time that the city actually controls and improving visibility and predictability for applicants. As projects move through the process. This is really the heart of the improvement work. We want a system that's easier to enter, easier to navigate, and easier to understand. We want stronger coordination behind the scenes, but we also want customers to feel that coordination in a more predictable and transparent experience. And we want to keep focusing our energy on the places where operational improvements can make the biggest difference in moving projects forward. So as we close, I think the big takeaway is that our permitting system is complex because the work is complex, but it's also strong, effective and improving compared to many peer cities, especially big cities. We believe we have an excellent system. It's nimble, it is responsive, and we're continuing to build a culture centered on getting to yes within our teams while making sure that we're providing safe, consistent and meaningful value through the review process. And I think it's really important just to end on the reason that that works is our people every day, more than 300 300 professionals help guide development in a city of over a million people. They do that work with deep expertise, care and professionalism, often on projects that are complicated, high stakes and intensely visible. They're at the core of what we do, and I wanted to close by recognizing them and thanking them for the tremendous work they do on our behalf and on behalf of the city. They're the backbone of the system, and they deserve the real credit for the work that you've heard about today. And so with that, we'll close and we're available for questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation, Chris, and thank you for your staff, for Lisa and J. Alex and Assistant Chief James Dobson. Thank you all for being here. But particularly, I want to thank the developers, the business owners who were who had the courage to come and speak to us and speak frankly about what is working for them, but more importantly, what isn't working for them. I want to thank Chris Neal, David Mulvihill, Ryan McNamara, Sumita Thakral and Jennifer Friedman, and I truly appreciate the stories that you tell and the frustrations that you share as well, along with the successes, I have a lot of notes and a lot of questions, but it's clear that that there are some processes that need to be improved consistency. The timelines need to be our major developers, our house, our affordable housing developers get to yes much quicker in and make sure that we're still safe in our development. But we need to be. Sometimes we move slowly. Not. Sometimes I can hear the. I heard the frustration in many of your comments. We need to figure out a way to do that quicker and more effectively. I to. I want to thank you for investing in the city of San Jose in all of your developments and David, in your small businesses and all of your restaurants, and I hope you all thrive in our very successful and that you continue to build and help us work through some of these, some of these areas that we need to continuously improve. With that, I will go to my counsel and first hand raise is Council Member Casey. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I also want to thank staff and the development community that came out to speak. You know, if you watch Planning commission meetings or city council meetings or study session like this, I think there's an aspect of survivorship bias. I mean, we're seeing the individuals that have actually gone through the process. There's a large universe of people that have abandoned projects or not even taken up the cause to try to do business here in San Jose. And having been professionally on the other side of the aisle, I can tell you there are folks that just as a matter of practice, won't do business with San Jose for the reasons some of the reasons that were stated here today, specifically to multifamily housing, I think functionally, we're over discretionary in terms of our framework, our permitting framework. And so I'm wondering what steps we're taking. And first, let me also acknowledge you know, there is a bit of a conflict of interest, having studied urban planning, I know there's this utopian ideal of what should be happening in our society. And I think that permeates planning staff, I think for good reason. But there is a gatekeeping mentality and philosophy that I think prevents us from developing more housing. And so what I would like to see is a structural shift to more of a discretionary. I mean, moving away from discretionary review to a rules based approval. So more of a ministerial process. So I'm wondering what we're doing in that regard because particularly with multifamily housing, I mean, it should be ministerial when a project is located in a housing element site, Urban village transit corridors or in downtown if it's consistent with the general plan and zoning and if it's compliant with objective, objective standards that we've set, I don't think we need to have these PD developments, special use permits, and bringing things to the planning staff and to the council. We have folks here that are very sophisticated developers. They've either got the in-house capacity or they've got consultants that have had an iterative relationship with the city of San Jose. So even with that advantage, they're still struggling. I'm concerned about the greater community that could be doing business here in San Jose if we had a more, I think the language that was used, Mr. McNamara, was predictability was the issue. I think if we had more certainty in our process, if there was a ministerial path, we would get more development. So I'm just wondering, on the ministerial side, what steps are we taking to remove ourselves from the path and stop being gatekeepers? Thank you for that question, Council member. I can start us off. So on the ministerial pathway, we are moving on a number of fronts to allow affordable housing projects and housing projects in general to be ministerial. So in December of 2024, we adopted a ministerial process for our growth areas. And we've had two projects actually move forward. Under that program, we are, as our next step, exploring or rather bringing forwar changes to our codes to allow for ministerial projects to move forward in downtown as well. So certainly continue that effort. I know for the smaller projects, we did code amendments that aligned with the state as well. For SB nine projects, and also council directed policy work that allows for ministerial projects for some of these smaller projects. And so that work will continue. Is there a need for a citywide ordinance for us to get more involved in sort of taking that process out of your guys's hand? I know you've said it's moving in the right direction, but I think to really expedite that process to where I mean, like cities like Houston, that I mean, you can jump in and get a project going. And I know Jennifer's project wasn't a residential multifamily project, but it just seems we could be doing more on the ministerial front. And I just wonder if there's a urge not to give up that power and to constantly chime in on projects. I don't believe. So. I think constantly, like we would love for opportunities to streamline further. Like I know for the sequel process, I always say that if you can do an addendum or a tiering, we don't want to do an MD or an IR because that's the most legally defensible path, but also the fastest path. However, we do have a number of asks for from our ordinance team currently because of state unfunded mandates such as SB 79, that means that we have to divert capacity within the citywide and our long range planning team towards those efforts. We are also in the middle of our general plan for year review process that provides opportunities to explore policy making for residential capacity citywide, and can set the stage for some of the changes that we want to make in our ordinance and streamlining the environmental review process in future years. I will say that ordinance efforts like ordinance updates efforts are not simple processes. So they do require airport and Land use commission review and approval. They have to go through a public hearing before planning commission, before the City Council for first reading and second reading, and typically also require some level of public outreach and engagement so that the community is aware that perhaps their ability to comment on a project or to appeal a project may go away if you do a ministerial path, so at least advising them of what kind of development standards perhaps are putting put into place to make that process easier and more predictable for the neighbors and for the community as well. So they are typically at least a year long process, if not longer, depending on the engagement that is needed. Councilmember. If I can just add something to that, just context wise I think just to address the concept of gatekeeping, you know, I like to certainly believe not. I will say there's a number of improvements that have gone through over the years. As a planning commissioner, you will recall that more things used to go through Planning commission. And when you look at that Sankey diagram of the 36,200 permits we issue every year, we're now down to about 50 of them. Make the city council, you know, less than sort of 60. Make it to Planning Commission, you know, at the discretionary level through a director's hearing, maybe at sort of 200 a year. So the vast majority of what we do. Absolutely is ministerial. And there's certainly a move towards doing more as we've implemented. So right now in an urban village, absolutely. We have a ministerial process in our growth areas in North San Jose. That already exists. We've lent in very heavily on all the state laws. I think, as you heard right, we've become very educated because it gives us the opportunity to move around that process. The counterpoint and what we tend to run up against, you know, is, is, you know, our land use regulatory framework is a statement of our values as a city and councils prior to yours have established that over a very long period of time, in conjunction with a very engaged community that have very strong opinions on what they believe the outcomes for development should be. And so that's the box we work in. We continue to push the limits of that box, because we do believe that we're a development forward organization. Our goal is to approve projects and get them done as quickly as possible. So I think that culture is built into the system. There's more that we'll do, and we'll continue to push you as the City Council through the four year review process of the general plan, to see what more we can do as well. Did you just put it back on the onus back on us? Yes, yes. What about standardizing and preapproved CEQA conditions? Yeah. And we'll have that to you on I think it's May 19th. So standard updating those standards is something that came through in the audit. Obviously with the passage of AB 130, it's something that we've leant in very heavily. While other cities around us have sort of looked at it, sort of trying to think about how to go about this, we quickly did an assessment of all the projects that we thought were eligible, that were currently in process, and started moving projects towards that. Again, we're not trying to create additional process or additional time. We're looking for the most efficient path through that we can find. So there'll be mitigation packages and the tiered environmental documents and all that. We're going. to go hard in that direction. Yeah, I think the sort of the best near term opportunity is where we can use the exemption process. The philosophy around Ceqa continues to evolve and change. It used to be that your best legally defensive document, under Sica was an EIR, and in some instances it is but sort of common convention for most projects is, hey, we can avoid that completely and we're just exempt. And especially if we're statutorily exempt, right? That is the best legal defense you can have from from Ceqa. So yeah, absolutely. We continue to look at that. I think there's less work going into tiered environmental documents just because they take a long time and they're very expensive. So, you know, we have the general plan air. We have the downtown EIR, we've done the North San Jose Air. And so they are successful at times. And we do continue to use those as appropriate. But rather than sort of setting our stand out and doing more of that work, the focus is really of how do we reduce the burden of CEQA by getting more into the exemption process. Okay. And then there was a number of comments made about comments, pardon the pun, consolidating the comment process how? Where are we on that path? I guess coming back and public works or different departments having comments all the way down the line, is there is there an avenue for us to consolidate the commenting process? Yeah, and it's certainly something we try to do. And as we kind of laid out early on in the slides, right, we try and catch a lot of that work early. And part of the reason it feels like there's this huge influx of comments at the start of the process is because we're trying to give you that that view of the overall process as you move through it. If we waited till the grading permit, if we waited till the encroachment permit or the building permit or fire sprinkler systems, or, you know, something like the turnaround for fire, if we waited till we got to a fire process to do that, and you had to move the building, then you're all the way back to step one. So the process is designed to do that. You know, I think sometimes when we're trying to be nimble and trying to get stuff out the door, there's this balance right? As we could either just wait and hold all of the comments until they're all ready and they're all ready to go, and then we release them all at once. Or we try and respond as we have things or sort of move back and forth. So we do try and strike that balance. It is something that we're constantly working on. I think the bigger issue is often consistency of comments right? And nobody wants to see that sort of like last minute, you know, thing that didn't come up early in the process. And that's really a product of our ongoing training with our staff and then ensuring that we have a system that's supported by the supervisors and their line managers all the way right up to sort of, you know, myself and the other directors in the process that we're holding our teams accountable that we're getting the review done right early on in the process. So, you know, it's not to say that it doesn't happen when you do that much volume it's always going to happen. But, you know, I believe that we've reduced our exposure to that. And that's something we continue to work on on a regular basis. I'm at my time. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Next, Councilmember Mulcahy. Thank you very much, Chris and team. Thanks for the presentation today. And thanks to our industry representatives here as well. And, you know, many of you spoke to what I was hoping, which is like real sort of straight talk about, you know, how we're doing things. You know, I come from 25 plus years of developing in this community from opening a small business like David to building ground up like Jennifer and I will say that it's sort of a bummer that we're still hearing some of the same challenges that have experienced, you know, in my in my career as well. And I wanted to tag along on something that council member Casey was just asking about. And that is the comments. And Chris, you sort of just tipped a little bit about, you know, this idea, if you, you know, you make your submittal, you've got signed off you get your comments back from the city and then you respond to those. Or do we have guardrails? And you just talked about it a little bit, but it doesn't feel like it's very clear to me in that if you've got staff who thinks in that response to those comments that, oh, I missed this the first time, not treading new territory, but oh, I missed this the first time. So that goes back to the client with with response. Was that what you were just talking about? That in consultation with supervisors and so forth, you're trying to prevent? Is that what you were saying? Yeah. So and I think there's multiple different versions of that. You know, sometimes it's, you know, related to, I'd say it's less of the time that we missed it. And now we found it in a later review. Sometimes it's the project shifts, something changes, you know, sometimes the redesign sparks another requirement. There's a number of different ways that that comes, I think, you know, and a little bit to the the diagram that Jay spoke to where it's boxes within boxes, right? And we give our staff, you know, a framework within which they can make decisions. And when they run up against the edge of that, whether it's, you know, a project that's sort of not conforming to the framework that we have, or there's a challenge like this where we feel like, hey, maybe we missed something or there's an opportunity to redirect a conversation that then they level up that conversation and the box that our supervisor have is, is bigger right? That a little bit more discretion to make the call and to take risks with projects to make sure that we're moving them forward. And we're not constantly pulling people back. But yes, so that's intended and sort of embedded in the way that we structure our teams, the way that we coach our supervisors and our managers to work with their staff. Because, you know, it does happen. It will happen on occasion, especially when you're talking about the volume. And I guess. What I'm saying is, I understand if if the scope changes or if it's a life and health safety issue that, you know, you shouldn't look past that. But just in a matter of course of a project hasn't changed. Do we have a discipline that we can exercise at the review level of the of the staff level review, where they don't get another bite at the same apple that they missed that comment before. They can't introduce that because in preparation for today, just sort of getting a refresher on talking to other folks that are working in our system today, you know, the stories of going through five and six rounds of comments on a project that didn't really change much. It feels like we have to really look harder at our own guardrails and discipline within our own system to make sure we're not causing that to happen. And I just would sort of recommend that we've got to get at that in this work that you're doing so that we can prevent that from happening. Because I would say, you know, comments and the, you know, out of the, you know, kind of out of the blue, if you will, is probably the biggest complaint that I hear about our program and certainly is all it was. It can be costly decisions, you know, for, for our applicants to have to contend with. I don't know if you want to say any more than that, but I can move on. So and. I'll just say a little bit and obviously I'm trying to generalize across all of those different permit processes. And, you know, it's different for building from planning, from fire, from public works. But generally it's an issue that we run into. And I think, you know, our first line of defense is effective management within our teams, which is kind of what I'm speaking to. I think the other thing that just bears mentioning in this context is just how this process has evolved. I remember writing 30 day letters as a planner in 2006. And, you know, maybe a long one would get to ten, 12 pages a long one today, I can tell you, has been up north of 70 pages. Just given the complexity of everything else, that's sort of coming to the framework from the state, you know, with new housing laws and all these other things. So, you know, there's a huge amount of complexity that our teams are dealing with. I think, as we see continued constraints on the amount of time we have available to do it as well. So when you're trying to catch every issue that a project has within that first 30 days or within that first 15 days on a building permit, you know, there's a lot. And I think that's where the challenge comes from. Again, you know, we continue to sort of we continue to work to avoid that as best we can. But when you're dealing with an extreme amount of volume and a limit to resources, often moving fast and being able to kind of move these projects through is is coming with that risk. Now, I don't want to minimize it. It's one of the biggest frustrations that I hear as well, and it's absolutely a priority for me. And I know all of the teams that work on this, but it's not one that there's sort of an easy, simple solution, whereas we just do one thing. It's got to be this constant work that we continue to balance. So I'll just take that as it's sort of at the top of the list of something that we've got to unpack and figure out how to be better at. I wanted to move to something that Sumita and Chris brought up, and that's with the outside agencies that we all have to contend with. Right. You know, it's not just in PBCE, it's, you know, every department is dealing with other agencies that we have to navigate. And I think we've done a good job with MoUs, with Caltrans and with, you know, water district, so forth. What and who and is that? Could that be an effective tool for PBCE too? You know, have greater connectivity between those other agencies that we have to deal with? We're the sort of the arbiter of a developer's project that comes in while they have to deal with PG and E and the others, or still the ultimate kind of, you know, Shepherd through the system, are you thinking about ways where we can tighten those relationships and understandings? You know, we had a conversation about, you know, the health department with the county. I, you know, I think in some ways we're doing better, but in other ways we're not. But that's just one example. Are we thinking about that as part of our work product to see how we can be better at that? Yeah, we definitely are. And it's, it's something that across our teams, we're constantly coordinating with a whole host of different agencies that are either coordinating agencies. Some of them are regulatory authorities, like all these different levels. I think the, the restaurant one is a great example because, you know there's a sequencing aspect in there as well. And if we can run as fast as we want on restaurants and we could run probably faster, right? We could turn them around very quickly. But if you've got a months long county process on the back end and it ultimately comes back with you having to change something with the physical layout of your design, then all of a sudden you're retriggering our process. And so, you know, we do try and coordinate with other agencies. We do try and share our best practices and try and get them to align as best we can. And we've had some success with the county in the past, you know, with other types of regulatory agencies. I mean, things like stormwater, right. And the regional board and sort of some of these other things that kind of use the development process as a means of sort of, you know, focusing attention and getting to compliance. You know, we're in constant communication with those authorities so we can continue to give real world feedback and help direct their process and hopefully get it to align with a more expeditious and simplified process on our end. I didn't time myself, so I'm just going to run out the clock until we see red. So, you know, your team is doing a lot and sort of accepting all these policies coming down from the state. We can't cost recover that. How are we going to pay for that? I mean, how are we thinking about our organization becoming more effective and efficient to be able to deal with that and do everything else that we've just heard today, to manage people continuing to invest in San Jose? Yeah, that's. A great question. I do not have a simple answer, but happy to continue the conversation during the budget process. I mean, I think, you know, when you think about PBCE across more broadly, right? And we're not even talking code enforcement today, but but we're roughly just within PBC. We're roughly 90% cost recovery right? The general fund accounts for general code, public information for planning on the first floor, and a little bit of the sort of public policy updates right? The rest of it really does fall within cost recovery. And it's something that we're constantly trying to balance how we're sort of managing the flow of work coming from the market, which is ultimately you know, volatile with our ability to staff. And I think, you know, when I talk about 300 professionals across development services, you'd be shocked at how few of them are really sort of engaged in reading plans on a regular basis, because we're constantly sort of balancing that. We are looking at ways of trying to be a little bit more sustainable. On the city wide planning side, which to the point, on the state law aspect, and there's an MBA that we're working on with the budget office that will come out through the budget process that speaks to that. And then it's really a conversation about trade offs. And as we move to CED this month, it encourages you to all pay attention because we'll be discussing our city wide work plan. And the way to think about that is kind of my thing at the moment is swimlane diagrams right? And so in our swimlane diagram for our citywide policy work at its base is currently the four year review. And the reason we're doing a four year review is so that in the end of 2027, we're ready to start the next housing element so that it's ready by January of 2031. So we don't end up in a situation with builders remedy projects all over the city. So that is consuming a huge amount of the work we do. On top of that, we've got the sort of unfunded mandate from the state. So you think just SB 79 alone just took up a huge amount of capacity near-term capacity. We had to pull people from other projects to respond to that and understand what implications that was going to have. You know, there's the core work that we were trying to do around urban villages and, you know, ongoing zoning code amendments. And then on top of that, that top swimlane is the council priorities that we get any given Tuesday or through rules on a Wednesday. And that's what we're going to have to balance, right? And how we prioritize that work and think about what's most critical to our objectives. Now, you know that that is a part of the conversation as well. Thank you. I'm out of time. Thank you, Council member. Council member Candelas. Thank you, vice mayor. I just want to begin my comments thanking the staff, Chris, and everybody in the box for for the presentation and especially for bringing in the the customer perspective to the conversation. I think it's always helpful to hear feedback like this directly from folks who interact with the city on a regular basis. And, you know, I've always said that we as a city need to be solving for that time in the development process. And this, this presentation was especially helpful understanding that. And, you know, I also want to give a shout out to Chris, your team. Whenever I have an issue as it pertains to constituent concerns your your staff is extremely responsive, whether it's residents or applicants who are ready for their home inspection, you know, they reach out and your team does an excellent job of making sure the bureaucracy gets everybody. You know, those who fall through the are addressed. So so thank you that that doesn't fall fall on deaf ears here and I appreciate it. I'm glad Councilmember Mulcahy asked that question as it pertains to, you know, a concern that I've had is, you know, the change of scope and the unpredictability of review. That can be a determinant for a deterrent for our applicants. For example, is, you know, I have somebody I have a project in my district for somebody who it's like a backyard project and they're there's a follow up review slash inspection by a different reviewer or an inspector, and they find additional issues that they then have to address. In addition to the first issues. And that elongates the process. And, and I just it's some frustrations. And so, you know, Chris, could you speak a little bit about this and maybe have the administration's perspective from this? Yeah. And so, I mean, I've touched on it a little bit. So I might invite Lisa to give her perspective on this because, you know, we see this a lot in building. It's one that we've kind of seen repeatedly. And so I'll let Lisa provide her perspective as well. Yeah. So we're working really consistency with plan reviews and with inspectors going out with the inspectors. You know, you're right. You could get a different inspector every time you go out. But if we were to change that. So you had the same inspector every time your inspections are going to be way far out. If the inspector is on vacation, you know, whatnot. So we are definitely working on consistency of looking at the previous inspection and moving forward. The only caveat I'll say is if there's something really life safety issue, like we can't just look the other way. I don't think that happens every time. And I do think, you know, there is room for improvement. And the property owner, the contractor can always reach out to the field coordinator printed on their permit card if they ever have. You know, I'm just not sure about this or I want to talk about it. The supervisor will go through it. Sorry to interject, Lisa, but you know, I completely agree. And, you know, but I would hope that as a, you know, like a uniform process, our inspectors would be able to flag the major life and safety issues on the first inspection and, you know, flag anything major. And if there's a subsequent review that something obvious that another inspector says, oh, no, you didn't do this. But like nitpicking is where like the little stuff, I mean, you all are the experts in this field, but that's the point that I'm trying to get at is, you know, how can we, you know, I think one of my colleagues is how do we get to a yes, right. Without obviously, you know, life and safety is paramount. But but I think changing that perspective as a city, I know we're trying to push in that direction. And that's extremely helpful. But you know, when I see the email strings from our residents getting mixed messaging on whether there's a project that should be rezoned and or doing a project development agreement on that on that site, there's, there's mixed messaging that I've seen, and I'm hoping we can, you know, find opportunities to streamline that, that process. And that's the main point of that. Yeah. And then another quick thing I wanted to flag is on the subject of ADUs. And, you know, for example, I've had several residents reach out to to my office about wanting to do ADUs in their, on their property and, and figuring out processes and requirements that can differ greatly depending on where it is in the district. For example, I have a resident who lives near the Meadowlands. It's near the the edge of the city and an urban wildlife. And there's different requirements based on how far they are from the fire hydrant. But I guess my question is about the Adu public education process before a resident starts embarking on that. You know, the contractor the engineer, the architect. So they kind of have like a, a specific of, you know, the cost and or the reality specific to, you know, properties, if that makes sense. Can, can staff speak a little bit to that? Yeah. So we have our Adu allies that they can always reach out to before they even get the project started to talk about the different logistics of their particular property and what they may encounter. And the Adu allies can get them in touch with specific technical staff. If it's something that they, you know, it's just a technical requirement that they can't answer to help formulate the project as they move forward. Is there any any cost to the Adu ally or any, any, any associated fees with, you know, potential review or any anything to look at specific to a potential projects. There is not. No, no talking to the Adu ally is not a there's no cost to speak with an Adu ally. Once we get into review. Like the project is actually submitted and review, that's when the the review fees will start. Okay, great. No, that's that's helpful to hear. And, and again, I really appreciated the perspective from, from folks who came and spoke about the experience working with the city. And it's definitely provides us an opportunity to, to, to lean in on some of the things that we're doing or not doing. So that's, that's all I have for now. And thanks again for the presentation. Thank you. Council member Tordillos. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to start again by thanking city staff for the great presentation as well. I think most of them have departed, but most of the the members of the private sector have come out to give their perspective on development services in the city. I wanted to say that I appreciate everything that you shared about everything that the city is doing to particularly prioritize affordable housing development. The increased inter-departmental coordination, having clear milestones, easier, more well-defined pathways for resolving problems as they arise. I think it would be great to expand some of what we've learned from that to market rate, residential as well. I know it was shared that, you know, a market rate developer who doesn't have the same imminent financing timelines may not be as responsive on their end, but I think hopefully still lessons that we can learn. I know the forward looking work on what we're working to improve mentioned strategic realignment to strengthen coordination across departments. Is it safe to assume that that will include trying to pick up some of the things that we've seen work well from the affordable space and apply it more broadly? Yes. I mean, we consistently try and look at different ways to to think about projects. I think the challenge we have is that we can't prioritize everything. And that's the balance. And when you look at one of those early charts where you see sort of volume by sort of where it is on the steps, it's a relatively smaller amount of projects that we're trying to focus on and prioritize. And to the extent that we expand that, it potentially reduces the effectiveness of that. But I think there are always lessons learned when you look at some of, you know, we have programs for everything, but when you look at some of that best experience that we've had over the years, I mean, even just some of our coordinated review through other building permit processes as well. I mean, it is very, very successful. It just requires dedicated staff to do it. So that's the trade off. But yes, there's definitely aspects of that that we continue to fall into the overall process. Thank you for that. And I know a lot of these things are very resource intensive. Expanding them would require more resources. I, for one, would be open to hearing proposals from PBCE about what you might be able to accomplish, given more resources than some of these things, because I know a lot of this really does intersect with major focus areas and goals for the city. I don't want to beat a dead horse too much, but do want to uplift some of the comments that have already been shared about comet consistency. You know, I haven't been around here that long, but I've already heard from, you know, half dozen project applicants in my district who have shared that they their frustrations with the fact that comments don't seem to narrow in scope over time makes it difficult to predict timelines. When you're getting new comments out of the blue kind of late in the process, and did want to also just kind of plus one, the comments from council member Casey about, you know, the unintended consequences of some of this in terms of people wanting to do business in San Jose. I talked to one project applicant who was investing in a business in downtown for the first time anywhere in San Jose for the first time. And after their frustrations with the process, they said very matter of factly that they would never invest in another business in San Jose. So I think there is a reputational concern here as well, in terms of what it means for us to be able to draw the sorts of businesses that we want to see into our community, and then also just wanted to uplift, you know Jennifer's comments about this culture or perceived culture of conservatism. You know, it was shared in one of the slides, this idea that if we improve the quality of the applications upfront, then it makes us jobs easier, less to review, fewer comments, fewer rounds of comments. You know, I have gotten a couple troubling anecdotes from people and they're just anecdotes about people who submitted applications. Still saw some slowness in the process. And when they probed a little bit, they got weird responses about plan checkers, looking for things to comment on a sense that, you know, they didn't want to, you know, stamp something for approval without commenting on anything or not providing sufficient comments. And that kind of tying into a perceived culture of people mostly kind of at the lower level plan check level, not wanting to be on the hook for missing something. So I think there is something there culturally about like, yes, how do we get to a culture of yes, but not a, you know, tortured, laborious long you know, process to getting to yes, but getting to yes, as expeditiously as we can. Obviously still meeting all of our health and safety and legal obligations. Oh, and then finally, just wanted to uplift council Member Casey's comments about the need to expand ministerial would just say that we submitted a memo alongside council members Campos, Cohen and Kamei last week to expand our ministerial program citywide. So hopefully this is an opportunity for the council to weigh in on this soon. So thank you. Thank you, Council member. Council member Campos. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you to staff for the comprehensive presentation. I do have just a few questions based on some of what I've heard from my residents and the business community in San Jose. We've heard that oftentimes applicants are having difficulty understanding what stage of their project is in and knowing who to contact. So, you know, for example, an applicant might call the planning department with building permit questions. And that leads to situations where staff have to then go and track down the appropriate contact when that's not their responsibility. So my question is, are there any directory or wayfinding options that we can implement that would make it easier for staff and cut down on the amount of switchboard work that is being done? Thank you. So any project that's in review is searchable, especially by the project owners on SJ permits. And it lists every review type and the person assigned to it and their email address to contact. So we can definitely make that more apparent or, or know how to find that information. Okay. That is helpful to understand and thank you. Another challenge that I've heard is so many properties in San Jose have planned development or PD zoning. And so that also makes it hard for property owners to understand what is or isn't allowed, because that zoning is so customized. And often the zoning and permit documents are not publicly available and are only accessible through what I understand are microfiche slides. And so I'm seeing a both transparency and operational issue here. So what are some ways that we can make dealing with PD zoning easier for both staff and the community? So Councilmember, some of the things you're referring to to sort of very old legacy PD Zonings and it's currently we're currently working through a procurement to digitize all of those plans that are contained within the microfiche. There's some technical reasons as to why we ran into some barriers on that, but that's a work plan item that we currently have under process that should allow those to be more accessible to everybody. I think it's important to note that by policy, the city has moved away from using PD Zonings with the implementation of the current General Plan in 2011, the general plan was actually pretty explicit around dissuading people from doing it. Often the reason we end up with them is because they're often requested by developers, because it provides some vesting of the the project outside of a typical development permit process, and it provides, it's usually sort of provides a little bit more flexibility. And I think, you know, this is emblematic of a lot of this conversation is that our work often revolves around a trade off between sort of predictability and flexibility, and that the more discretion we have. Right, means that there's less sort of written down or less sort of explicit. If you want a very clear, transparent and predictable process, then you need sort of set guidelines and zoning regulations or requirements that spell that out. And so, you know, there's a balance there as we could make everything just approvable right away. As long as you check all of these boxes, or we could have more discretion to be able to get to yes, in certain circumstances. And so we're constantly trying to figure that out. And that's often sort of what we see through that plan. Development zoning situation as it's typically people have looked for that flexibility outside of the traditional zoning districts. Thank you, Chris, for that response and everyone for weighing in. I have just two more questions. We've received feedback that base fees are often inadequate to cover the time worked, particularly for environmental review. We heard from the public comments about how well our staff is managing an ever changing regulatory environment, but my concern is that we need to set realistic expectations for the costs and staff time that's required, both in terms of informing the applicant, as well as avoiding situations where staff have to send supplemental invoices. And so when should we review and update these base updated the base fee for Eirs, which is typically where we see a lot of this additional work coming through. And there are a number of variables in there that that create these challenges. If we look at one in your district with Heritage Oaks projects right now, I think we received something like 700 comments on that IR. And so, you know, we wouldn't predict that typically in our base fees, that's that's when we tend to see these additional invoices come through is when there's something that's triggered an additional sort of subset of work. But we do try and capture that. Again, it's a constant balancing act of not overcharging our customers. So we have to look very closely at at what the sort of majority of projects are using on an hourly basis. And then it's those projects that go above and beyond that, that are seeing those additional invoices. Okay. Thank you. And my last question, there's a note in the staff report about internal performance versus external perception. And I'm concerned that a lot of the routine and simple applications for planning, like zoning verification letters appear slow because of insufficient staffing. The work itself is quick, but when it sits in queue for weeks, it gives the perception that the city is slow. So are there any specific planning teams where additional staff could make the biggest impact on accelerating project timelines? I'm sure Manila would tell you it's all of our planning teams. And it's true, right? I mean, think about the sort of it's really sort of four discrete sections of our planning department. The first is our public information counter, which is not just sort of the front facing door on the first floor, but they're also managing conformance review. So all of the new development building permits that come in also get checked by a planner to make sure it's conforming with the planning entitlements that have come through. So that team, you know, is, is, you know, is pretty thin on the ground. And they're sort of required to provide sort of public information as well. And that does create an additional drain on capacity. Then you've got development review, which is your typical sort of bigger project that's moving through our SQL team and then our policy team on citywide planning. And I think there's gaps on all four of those. Certainly, we try and manage that through the budget process and the fee model. But again, we're often doing that, predicting development. And while we're incredibly busy all the time, development is actually in a sort of a historic low, right. And so we're trying to manage our staffing levels through lower activity and sort of what we use as a measure is the average dollar per permit. And so we've got lower average dollar right now, which means that we can't staff up to the levels that we would hope to, to give the types of customer service that we aspire to. Thank you. Appreciate those answers. Thank you. Council member. Council member Kamei. Thank you so much. And and thank you for all the work that you do. I know it's complex and, you know, every year that I've been here, we've been trying to tell you, oh, better, better faster faster faster. And and I know that in addition to our urging you to be faster, there are a lot of different regulations that come through that you also have to address. And those are unfunded mandates. So let's face it, it makes it much more complex. So thank you for what you do. I also want to thank the speakers. They took off, but I just wanted to say thank you for their input. If you if you ever have to go through a project where it takes a very long time. It can be really, really painful to, to learn that you know, everything that you've been told to do is not exactly the way it should be. Then you get switch and you end up with another planner or a third planner and you know, it just can be very, very difficult. I'm not saying this happened here in the city of San Jose, but that has been my experience in other areas. And and time just goes clicking away and having to have things go through the many different departments as is required can also be a challenge which takes a lot of time. I'm wondering what opportunities are there for all departments to either come together or find their way to? Because I think that, you know, part of it is that it goes from one department to another department to another department. And and so I'm just wondering if there are opportunities to think about coming together on projects. Thank you. Councilmember. So yes, we agree. And there are a number of different points at which we use interdepartmental coordination at all levels to make sure that we're on board. In fact, I think it's next week, sort of. The directors are in our quarterly major projects meeting right? Where we're reviewing kind of where are the status of all these major projects and kind of what do we see coming? So, so there's always opportunity to improve. We definitely see that and we continue to experiment with some other programs that will help support that. So what you see in some of the coordinated programs in building, certainly with the affordable or with our Star program or SRP, is those are coordinated meetings where we're putting all the disciplines around the table. And it is incredibly efficient. Beyond that, you know, we're we now have three development facilitation officers, you know, which tends to be focused on the larger, more complex projects. But I mean, that is intended to be that exact model where we have one person that becomes that point of contact for the project, all the way from ideation through to occupancy, that they carry that project across all of the different processes between the different departments. So absolutely, we believe in that as a, as a team across all four of the departments and something that we continue to focus on. Okay. I know that, you know, when I was at the water district, one of the things that was very difficult was to actually have a state resources control board person to work on water district projects. So we ended up having to pay for an individual that would do this shepherding. And I'm wondering, I know that, you know, sort of the, the balance between funding a dedicated staff and, you know, the priorities and, you know, trying to balance that. And I'm just wondering if there are models out there where, you know, we can see that it's going to be funded in a way that, you know, balances, you know, the having the staff as well as, you know, sort of going through priorities. Yeah. So maybe I'll jump in on this one. So as I mentioned earlier, and you might recall from my work plan for this year is that we want we're we've just kicked off a development services optimization and or realignment work where I've brought back a rehired retiree to help Chris and, and all of the department directors to look at that exact same problem. And so looking at projects from cradle to grave and, and where we can be more efficient is, you know, and the accountability and the ownership of those projects is could, is there a different funding model we should look at? So as they're constantly trying to do their, their improvements and their continuous improvement efforts, I've kind of got that overlaid as well. And so it doesn't distract from everything else they're doing just to, to study that. So we're, we've just kicked that off and there'll be more to come on that. But I think that's a very good question that we're asking ourselves. Yeah, that's great. Because, you know, at the end of the day, if the applicants have to wait and wait and wait, you know, it's money on their side and perhaps paying a little bit more to be able to fund some of this work. Will, will make it go faster. So thank you for that. And I'm just wondering, you mentioned during the continuous improvement to get to a level of consistency, is that happening? Just, you know, through training or how, how, how are you doing? How are you doing that? Yeah. So it's a combination of things understanding that, you know, so much of the value that we add is through the staff that we have. So, you know, making sure that we're a retaining our staff, which is important because when we have that consistency of staff over time, it really helps. And then ensuring that we're sort of having clear pathways to onboarding and training that staff so that they can maintain that high standard across the board. But I mean, consistency hits in so many different ways. So again, how we make the entire process more predictable by giving people more sort of access to information up front is critically important. If anybody missed the announcement, we just updated all of our building permit web pages. So for sort of some of the smaller projects, they have a much easier pathway in where they can see that information much more clearly and consistently. So. So they're providing the information in the right way. And that allows us to be consistent in response as well. So we're trying to hit that across the board in multiple different ways. Thank you. Thank you. Council member seeing no hands raised. I think we'll turn to members of the public. Do we have anyone here? I have no cards. Okay. Thank you. Thank you again for the presentation. Obviously we had a lot of questions. I think we've exhausted the issue for the moment, but I think this will probably come up in CED and as we go forward. Thank you very much for being here. We stand adjourned.