County consultants recommend project managers, technology upgrades to speed permitting
May 11, 2026 | Alameda County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Management Partners presented initial findings aimed at improving Alameda County’s permitting and development‑review process, recommending clearer early coordination, designated project managers for major applications, and modernized permit‑tracking technology.
Elaine (Management Partners) said the phase‑1 effort was a listening tour based on 17 interviews with county staff, applicants and department heads. Dan Marks, the firm’s consultant, summarized recurring themes: applicants lack consistent early guidance across Planning, Building, Public Works and Fire; environmental‑health requirements (notably on‑site wastewater) have created late surprises and unanticipated costs; and some departments lack consistent project‑tracking systems. "Early identification of potential issues is critical," Marks told the board.
The consultants recommended a second phase that would include broader outreach to applicants and more line‑staff interviews, case studies of projects that ran into problems, and process maps that trace each step from application intake to final approvals. The consultants estimated a Phase‑2 timeframe of eight to ten months and said the CAO would designate a staff project manager to lead the work if the board proceeds.
Supervisors thanked the consultants and asked operational questions about immediate "low‑hanging fruit" that could be implemented before a full diagnostic. Board members suggested bringing back early coordination meetings via Zoom and restoring one‑stop customer services eliminated during the pandemic. Several public commenters, including industry representatives and agricultural stakeholders, urged a focus on improved IT integration, adequate staffing and performance measures to hold divisions accountable.
Planning staff said some pilot work and grant funds (an SP2 grant was cited) are already in progress to make zoning and specific‑plan language more objective in places. The board asked staff to return with next steps and to pursue some immediate coordination practices that could be implemented while the consultant work continues.
Key speakers: Management Partners (Elaine; Dan Marks), Supervisors Halbert, Miley and Brown, members of the agricultural and applicant community.
Elaine (Management Partners) said the phase‑1 effort was a listening tour based on 17 interviews with county staff, applicants and department heads. Dan Marks, the firm’s consultant, summarized recurring themes: applicants lack consistent early guidance across Planning, Building, Public Works and Fire; environmental‑health requirements (notably on‑site wastewater) have created late surprises and unanticipated costs; and some departments lack consistent project‑tracking systems. "Early identification of potential issues is critical," Marks told the board.
The consultants recommended a second phase that would include broader outreach to applicants and more line‑staff interviews, case studies of projects that ran into problems, and process maps that trace each step from application intake to final approvals. The consultants estimated a Phase‑2 timeframe of eight to ten months and said the CAO would designate a staff project manager to lead the work if the board proceeds.
Supervisors thanked the consultants and asked operational questions about immediate "low‑hanging fruit" that could be implemented before a full diagnostic. Board members suggested bringing back early coordination meetings via Zoom and restoring one‑stop customer services eliminated during the pandemic. Several public commenters, including industry representatives and agricultural stakeholders, urged a focus on improved IT integration, adequate staffing and performance measures to hold divisions accountable.
Planning staff said some pilot work and grant funds (an SP2 grant was cited) are already in progress to make zoning and specific‑plan language more objective in places. The board asked staff to return with next steps and to pursue some immediate coordination practices that could be implemented while the consultant work continues.
Key speakers: Management Partners (Elaine; Dan Marks), Supervisors Halbert, Miley and Brown, members of the agricultural and applicant community.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
