Development Streamlining Ad Hoc Committee
August 4, 2026

DEVELOPMENT STREAMLINING AD HOC COMMITTEE
AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

August 4, 2026, 12:00 p.m.

City Hall North Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Committee Members:

Eric Arias
Bob Smith
Larry Koman

1. ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Agenda Item Public Statements
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. Adoption of April 6, 2026, Special Meeting Minutes
Staff recommends adoption of the minutes

4. REPORTS
a. Presentation on the Process of Building Permit Submittals Staff recommends the Committee receive and file the presentation. b. Permit Process Benchmark Study Results
Staff recommends the committee receive and file the study.

5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
a. Adoption of the Meeting Schedule for 2026
Staff recommends committee approve the meeting schedule.

6. NEW BUSINESS

7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS

8. ADJOURNMENT

1 DEVELOPMENT STREAMLINING AD HOC COMMITTEE

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING

April 6, 2026, 12:00 p.m.

City Hall North Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue

Members Present: Eric Arias, Bob Smith, Larry Koman

_____________________________________________________________________

1. ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Agenda Item Public Statements
None.
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements
Dave Dmohowski expressed his appreciation for the formation of the Ad hoc committee.

Tom Dee made comments regarding infrastructure construction.

Max Bacerra thanked Phil Burns for his leadership and guidance and the importance of Bakersfield continuing to progress.

Committee Member Koman requested PG&E participate in the Committee.

Chair Arias requested inspectors participate, including the Fire Department.

Alan Alvarez made public comments.

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
None.

4. REPORTS
None.

5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
None.

2 6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Adoption of the Proposed Meeting Schedule for 2026
Chair Arias requested monthly meetings. Committee Member Koman stated that the September and November meetings have conflicts for him, and concurred with the Chair on monthly meetings.

Chair Arias moved on to item 6.b. so the Committee can make a more informed decision regarding the frequency of meetings.

Motion by Committee Member Koman to move the calendar to the July meeting. Motion was unanimously approved.

Staff recommends adoption.
b. Review of prior and existing initiatives to assist in setting the scope and goals for the Committee
Assistant City Manager Hallen made staff comments and provided a PowerPoint presentation.

Development Services Director Burns made additional staff comments and continued the PowerPoint presentation.

Alison Brandt Oliver asked questions about the Clarity shared access.

Staff recommends the Committee review the information and set the scope and goals for this Committee.

1. PowerPoint presentation

7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Chair Arias moved item to the top of the agenda.

Chair Arias made comments regarding the purpose of the committee and the efforts staff have already undertaken to improve processes.

Committee Member Koman made additional comments.

Committee Member Smith made additional comments.

8. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:13 p.m.

_________________________

ERIC ARIAS, CHAIR

_________________________

3 JULIE DRIMAKIS, CITY CLERK

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: July 21, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Reports TO: Development Streamlining Ad Hoc Committee
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: July 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Presentation on the Process of Building Permit Submittals.

-

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Committee receive and file the presentation.

BACKGROUND:

On April 6, 2026 in the inaugural meeting of this committee, staff presented an outline of the initiatives occurring in the Development Services Department to streamline building permit activity. The discussion included the City’s Electronic Plan Review System.

Staff will provide a real-time demonstration from two perspectives: 1. The electronic building permit process as it pertains to the applicant’s submittal requirements and 2. Observing the behind the scenes access for how staff evaluates and approves building permits.

Mr. Derrick Clark will provide the demonstration for how an applicant submits a building permit. Mr. Ali Rasheed will then show the staff’s process for permit evaluation.

City management and supervisors also use this data to ensure permit timelines are being monitored.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal request as part of this presentation.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS:

None

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: August 4, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Development Streamlining Ad Hoc Committee
FROM: Gary Hallen, Assistant City Manager
Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: July 30, 2026
SUBJECT: Permit Process Benchmark Study

[Document Description]

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the committee receive and file the study from Cornerstone Engineering.

BACKGROUND:

Discussion occurred at the inaugural meeting of the Ad Hoc Development Streamlining Committee.

Members of the committee were concerned that not enough progress was going to be made from the April Meeting to July Meeting. A commitment was made at that meeting to the Committee to ensure that a third-party report would be complied with for the committee review at the July meeting. Assistant City Manager Hallen saw to it that the Study was commissioned and completed prior to this meeting, as the City engaged with Cornerstone Engineers Advisors (Cornerstone) to complete a study of three key areas to provide feedback to this Committee and the City Development Review team. The scope of work that Cornerstone was engaged to complete consisted of the following data:

 High-level baseline desktop review of the City’s existing permitting process and materials;  Benchmarking permitting practices from five comparable jurisdictions, which consisted of Fresno, Stockton, Ontario, Corona and Santa Clarita.
 Stakeholder Inte rviews with targeted feedback from permit applicants such as design professionals and other heavy users in the Development Review Process.

The report is attached to provide the City and the Committee with some valuable data; Cornerstone will also provide an overview of the report with its recommendations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund in receiving the analysis comple ted by Cornerstone. The study was commissioned and cost less the $40,000.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government
Reliable Infrastructure
Economic Opportunity for All
Community Character & Quality of Life

ATTACHMENTS:

Cornerstone Report

661.325.9474
661.325.9474 5509 Young Street, Bakersfield, CA 93311 www.cornerstoneeng.com

Permitting Process Benchmark Study
July 2026

Prepared For: Gary Hallen, Assistant City Manager - Bakersfield Cornerstone Engineering, Inc.
5509 Young Street
Bakersfield, CA 93311

Bakersfield Permitting Study 1 | P a g e

Executive Summary
Among the many factors that attract investment to a community is the reputation of the local municipality in terms of permit processing. Communities with well -defined permit expectations and a demonstrated track record of timely reviews are more attractiv e to investors and the result contributes to a more vibrant local economy.

The City of Bakersfield signals a strong recognition of this by commissioning this benchmark study, to compare current City processes against others to use as a reference point and serve as a potential list of opportunities or options to consider in the future. Cornerstone Engineers & Advisors approached this study following three core elements:
• A high-level baseline desktop review of the City’s existing permitting process and materials; • Benchmarking of permitting practices from five comparable jurisdictions . The list of peer cities, Fresno, Stockton, Corona, Ontario, and Santa Clarita was developed in collaboration with City staff. It reflects quantitative factors, including population and similarity in development type, as well as qualitative considerations such as reputation, competitive positioning, and recent commercial development activity. • Targeted feedback from permit applicants such as design professionals or other frequent developer applicants.

Our recommendations in this report were informed by these core elements in addition to Cornerstone’s own lens into opportunities to support economic prosperity while maintaining public health, safety, and general welfare. One approach to this is through consideration of the City’s role. A common analogy used to describe the role of any agency’s permitting function is that of sports referee or umpire – they do not play the game (design or build the project) but ensure the pl ayers (i.e. developers) follow the established rulebook.

The City may consider a stronger shift in that mindset – from referee to accountable participant.

The City permit team could view each project as a vehicle to benefit our standard of living, increase revenue, and uphold regional prosperity. While a referee penalizes for a mistake, a participant helps fix it – city planners and plan checkers actively seek to help a developer redesign a layout or expedite approvals.

To be clear, this does not mean a shortcut of standards nor any sacrifice of public health or welfare, but a framework for a different mindset which seeks to support the region’s project. Simultanously, applicants need to participate in productive ways as well; the City should seek to engage and build relationships with core applicants to ensure they are also taking steps that are consistently asked of them.

While this shift in mindset may not feel like a tangible, process-based improvement recommendation, it is a strategic one that, when modeled by leadership, does inform activities and processes that are sure to have a longer -term positive impact for our region. The following recommendations in Table 1 are aligned with this shift.

Bakersfield Permitting Study 2 | P a g e

Table 1
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendations Note
Published targets for building and plan check
reviews with publicly available reporting against
these targets. Average number of Re-Submittals
per application should be reported as well.

Continues to introduce accountability and
transparency; becomes a strength when decision-
makers are looking at potential projects
Re-Submittal simplification and access to
decision-makers:
• Add requirement to meet with City Staff after
2nd re-submittal
• Re-submittals reviewed by same plan checker
as original (if reasonably possible)
An idea by City Staff, we agree with required
meetings to ensure applicants and City Staff are
interpreting feedback and understanding each
other – promotes culture of “accountable
participants” instead of “referees.”
Guided navigation - both pre-application and
during application:
• A personalized flowchart or checklist based
on inputs from applicants at beginning of
project;
• an integrated guided navigation within Clariti;
• an AI-chatbot feature to assist based on
library of information
Improvement to overall customer experience and
potential to improve amount of Re-Submittals
through a clearer understanding of expectations
and proactive access to resources
Sunsetting of ProjectDox or other consolidation
of applications
Single platform for application and drawing
upload / review to improve customer experience

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to report and advise on the City’s own processes through learnings from other regions and common applicants. We hope these represent useful and meaningful changes that will result in better outcomes for all stakeholders.

Sincerely,
Eric N. Dhanens Christine M. Halley, PE
Partner Managing Partner

Bakersfield Permitting Study 3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Bakersfield Permitting Process .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1. Current-State Profile .................................................................................................................... 4

2. Peer City Benchmarking ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Comprehensive Comparison Matrix ............................................................................................ 5

2.2. Peer City Notable Practices ......................................................................................................... 7

3. Applicant Feedback................................................................................................................................ 8

4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Appendix A – City of Bakersfield Current Process Review ................................................................... 11 Appendix B – Peer City Reports ............................................................................................................. 12 Appendix B.1 – Corona ........................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix B.2 – Fresno ............................................................................................................................ 14 Appendix B.3 – Ontario .......................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix B.4 – Santa Clarita .................................................................................................................. 16 Appendix B.5 – Stockton ........................................................................................................................ 17 Appendix C – Applicant Interview Discussion Framework .................................................................... 18 Appendix D – Highlights of Applicant Feedback ................................................................................... 19

Bakersfield Permitting Study 4 | P a g e

1. Bakersfield Permitting Process

1.1. Current-State Profile
This report benchmarks Bakersfield’s current permitting processes and identifies notable practices among peer cities. Cornerstone began with a high -level desktop review of the current processes using publicly available information, City-provided materials, and a walkthrough of the process itself with Cornerstone’s civil and planning teams. The summary below provides an excerpt of relevant findings; the full review is included in Appendix A.

Overview
The City’s public materials are extensive. The Development Center groups electronic plan review, regulatory documents, inspections, current development, FAQs, getting -started materials, self-serve maintenance permits, and forms and checklists. The Planning Application Packet is particularly thorough, identifying application categories, required signatures, supplemental materials, special studies, public-notice obligations, and estimated processing periods once an application is complete.

Bakersfield is also actively modernizing. Public sources show electronic permitting, paperless inspections, a development -process efficiency study, a developer advisory group, permit -timeline commitments, and a one-stop-shop effort underway. Most notably, the City partnered with Symbium to launch an automated instant-permitting platform in mid-2025, which issues eligible permits in roughly 10 to 15 minutes for project types such as solar, energy storage, EV charging, electrical service panels, and reroofs.

Against that strong foundation, the recurring theme across the public experience is that information is organized as a resource library rather than a guided pathway. The same applicant often has to move among several pages, PDFs, and online systems to asse mble a complete submittal, understand which approval body applies, and know when the review clock actually starts. The findings below summarize some key points during our review; the full write up can be found in Appendix A. • The completeness/prescreen gate is one of the most important points of friction • A guided or other type of active navigation (as opposed to passive library of resources in various locations) within Clariti would be beneficial
• There are published planning estimates but less clear on the building side. Opportunity to add specific targets and report against those targets
• Overall, the electronic application, Symbium addition, and process improvements over the last 10 to 15 years are a positive indicator of the trajectory of the City’s processes It is evident that Bakersfield
continues to modernize its
systems and is interested in
accountability, transparency,
and visibility through the
permitting processes

Bakersfield Permitting Study 5 | P a g e

2. Peer City Benchmarking
A major purpose of this report is to identify strategic comparison cities and understand notable practices within their permitting processes. Cornerstone used a quantitative screening process to evaluate similarity to Bakersfield, followed by a qualitative selection process based on regional growth, reputation, competitive positioning, and public observations.

A shortlist was developed by screening every California city above 75,000 population against four weighted criteria measuring similarity to Bakersfield: regulatory and environmental setting (for example San Joaquin Valley air - and water-quality constraints), development mix, population, and fiscal profile.

Two additional, separately reported lenses were layered on: ten -year population growth (as a proxy to development-vitality) and published permitting transparency.

The screening produced a 15-city shortlist which comprised of mostly expected cities within the California Valley such as Fresno or Visalia or in the Inland Empire such as Ontario, Fontana, and Riverside.

One of the few outliers was Santa Clarita within Los Angeles County. Through discussion between our team and City staff, five peer cities were selected: Stockton and Fresno from the Central Valley; Corona and Ontario from the Inland Empire; and Santa Clarita . These cities were selected based on similarity, reputation as growing regions, and competitive relevance to businesses or individuals who may also consider investing in Bakersfield.

2.1. Comprehensive Comparison Matrix
Cornerstone prepared short reports for each of the five cities shown above in a manner analogous to our review of Bakersfield City’s processes – a thorough but high -level observational review of the key processes, the technologies used, transparency and accountability, and other best -practices. These are shown in Appendix B.

At a profile and staffing level, Bakersfield is at the slightly higher end of population and closer to median in recent annual expenditure. While taken with a grain of salt, staffing levels appear to be lower than the other five both at building (by >25% per capita) and planning with the exception of Stockton. This also shows up in the indicative permits per staff value which indicates average Bakersfield staff churn through more permits than these peer cities.

We’ve further organized our findings below into two categories: Customer Experience which is related to pre -application guidance, portal ease -of-use, and guided navigation for example; and Performance Culture which speaks to transparency and accountability to pu blished targets through reporting and effectiveness of expedited or simplified applications.
- Customer Experience: four of the five other cities have a single primary portal and provide some combination of pre-application guidance and guided navigation. Two examples stood out 1) Corona provides a customized checklist and process flow chart and 2) Santa Clarita uses an AI - chatbot to assist applicants.
- Performance Culture: several peer cities use Symbium or SolarAPP+ instant permitting and allow for various over -the-counter permits. Two cities, Corona and Fresno, stand out for publishing targeted timeframes and regularly reporting performance against those targets . Santa Clarita provides applicant-facing guidance on common plan -check issues drawn from historical plan - check comments.

Bakersfield Permitting Study 6 | P a g e

Table 2 –
Comprehensive Permitting Comparison Matrix
DIMENSION Bakersfield Corona Fresno Ontario Santa Clarita Stockton A. PROFILE, FISCAL & STAFFING
County Kern Riverside Fresno San Bernardino Los Angeles San Joaquin Population (1/1/2026) 422,853 159,309 560,948 187,863 232,883 322,436 10-yr population growth
(2016–2026) +11.4% +3.3% +6.8% +12.8% +8.9% +3.7%
Govt-funds expenditure
(FY2023-24) $476.5M $277.0M $776.6M $616.3M $245.6M $476.5M Per-capita expenditure $1,127 $1,739 $1,384 $3,281 $1,054 $1,478 Permitting department /
structure
Development Services Dept
— Planning, Building,
Econ/Comm Dev;
Development Center hub
Planning & Development Dept
— Planning, Building, Dev
Services, Code Compliance
Planning & Development Dept
— Building & Safety; Current
Planning
Community Development —
Building & Planning (shared
portal w/ Engineering, Fire)
Public Works / Building &
Safety — One-Stop Permit
Center (B&S, Eng., Planning)
Community Development Dept —
Building & Life Safety, Dev. Engineering,
Planning
Building + plan-check core FTE
(FY24-25, authorized) 31 171 602 223 28.54 25
Staff per 10,000 residents 0.73 1.07 1.07 1.17 1.22 0.78 Planning Division FTE (FY24-
25, authorized)5 18 8 45 15 14 8
Dev-services $/capita (FY24-
25, all funds)6 $44 $59 n/c n/c $63 $51
Permits per staff (indicative)7 ~358 231 246 342 185 357 B. PROCESS, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPARENCY
Online permit portal Clariti (Community Service
Portal) — apply, status, pay
eTRAKiT — apply, pay, status,
permit history, inspections
Accela Citizen Access — 24/7
apply, pay, status, inspections
Accela Citizen Access — apply,
address/GIS, status, pay,
inspections
eService (Accela) — 24/7
submit, pay, status,
inspections
Accela Citizen Access — apply, pay,
status, inspections
Electronic plan review ProjectDox / Avolve (via
Development Center)
Through eTRAKiT; outside
plan-check consultants
Through ACA (back-check /
addenda online)
Citizen Portal Access — fully
electronic submit & resubmit
eService — 24/7 electronic
submittal
Electronic Plan Check (EPC), in lieu of
paper
Instant permitting
Symbium — ~12 permit types,
≤15 min (“first U.S. city,” per
City)
Symbium (solar) + standard-
plan solar/EV packages
SolarAPP+ (instant solar) +
same-day express MEP
Symbium real-time — solar,
storage <38.4kW, re-roof
Symbium — solar/storage,
panel, water heater, repipe
SolarAPP+ + over-the-counter
electronic permits
Expedited / over-the-counter
path
Self-serve maintenance
permits; Symbium fast path
Expedited solar/EV; standard
plans
Same-day Level 1 over-the-
counter; express MEP
Minor changes over-the-
counter same day
Expedited = ½ standard (free
solar/EV); OTC ≤30 min same
visit
OTC
electrical/HVAC/plumbing/reroof/water
heater
Published service standards
(turnaround)
Planning processing estimates
published; no building plan-
review days
10 days 1st / 5 resubmittal;
approval by 3rd review; 1-day
insp. notice
Tiered: building 3/14/21/28
days by level; planning OTC–
100 days
No day-based target (“timely
& professional”); Symbium
instant path
No routine day target;
expedited defined as ½
standard
Published cycle times by type/value
(SFR 15/10; comm. 20/15 days)
Performance transparency
Monthly Summary/Building
reports (permits, units,
valuation); no on-time
dashboard
CorStat public dashboards —
volumes + turnaround + ~96%
on-time
Annual Red Carpet Report —
95% plan / 99% bldg on-time;
CSAT 4.6/5
Monthly Building Permit
Activity Reports (since 2019);
no on-time metric
Annual highlights (5,260
permits; 31,182 insp.; $488M,
2025); no on-time metric
OPDA / StocktonStat + open-data
portal; cycle-time monitoring
Applicant navigation / pre-
application tools
Development Center hub;
checklists, FAQs, e-plan
training videos
Interactive permit checklist +
project-type flowcharts +
Gantt chart
Process booklets by level;
QLess appts; standard plan
templates
Published guides +
standardized correction lists;
Book an Appointment
Plan requirements w/
example plans by type;
“Sammy” chatbot
CDD Virtual Assistant (pre-app cost &
zoning); Easy Inspection Scheduler
Standout best practice /
differentiator
“First-in-U.S.” Symbium
instant permitting; published
planning estimates; detailed
monthly building reports
Public performance
dashboards (CorStat) + guided
applicant navigation;
committed numeric plan-
review standard
Complexity-tiered process w/
published timeframes + Red
Carpet performance report
Real-time instant permitting
(broader than solar) + fully
electronic submit/resubmit
Expedited free for solar/EV +
Symbium instant + OTC same-
visit review
Published cycle times by project type +
citywide performance-analytics culture

Bakersfield Permitting Study 7 | P a g e

2.2. Peer City Notable Practices
Through this review, Cornerstone identified notable practices which are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3
Peer City Notable Practices
BP Peer City Topic What it is
BP-1 Corona Unified Portal Through eTRAKiT
BP-2 Corona Published
Targets
10 business days for first review, 5 per resubmittal
BP-3 Corona Reported
Outcomes
Public dashboard reporting against published targets
(including “neighboring city” outcomes)
BP-4 Corona Approval “Approval by 3rd Review”
BP-5 Corona Guided
Navigation
Interactive checklist and project flowcharts route applicants from project type to the requirements that apply to them BP-6 Fresno Unified Portal Through Accela Citizen Access BP-7 Fresno Guided
Navigation
Organized into four complexity levels and ushered
accordingly; not interactive
BP-8 Fresno Published
Targets
3 / 14 / 21 / 28 business days for four complexity levels; planning OTC to 100 days; back-check 10 days
BP-9 Fresno Reported
Outcomes
Red Carpet Report monthly activity reports against
published targets; includes customer-service ratings and in-person meetings
BP-10 Fresno Culture “Get to YES” and “We Work For You” campaigns to signal staff support of projects
BP-11 Ontario Resubmittals Standardized correction lists so applicants can see common correction items before they submit
BP-12 Stockton Unified Portal Through Accela Citizen Access BP-13 Stockton Pre-Application Virtual Assistant for pre-application zoning and cost estimates
BP-14 Stockton Published
Targets
By project type, e.g. new single-family 15 days /
commercial new construction 20 days, with shorter
resubmittal targets
BP-15 Stockton Reported
Outcomes
Interactive GIS-based stat portal; however, doesn’t appear to report performance against published targets
BP-16 Santa
Clarita
Unified Portal Through Accela Citizen Access
BP-17 Santa
Clarita
Pre-Application AI-based chatbot assistant, “Sammy”

Bakersfield Permitting Study 8 | P a g e

BP Peer City Topic What it is
BP-18 Santa
Clarita
Expediting Projects over $100,000 may be expedited to “one-half the standard turnaround” for a 50% fee

3. Applicant Feedback
Comparing the City of Bakersfield’s permitting processes to peer cities offers valuable comparisons.

But such comparisons speak more to the mechanics of permit processes and can miss the more human side of important interactions. To better understand that experience, Cornerstone conducted a targeted outreach to engineers, developers, architects, contractors, and other frequent permit applicants to gather feedback on the City of Bakersfield’s permitting process. While Cornerstone developed a framework for desired discussion points (see Appendix C), participants generally needed little prompting to describe their experience. Highlights from outreach conversations are included in Appendix D.

The recurring themes from these conversations, based on input from seven individuals representing companies ranging from sole proprietorships to larger firms and developers, are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4
Applicant Feedback Themes
Topic Themes That Emerged
Clarity of Requirements Applicants described difficulty interpreting requirements when comments are vague,
inconsistent, or not clearly tied to the project
scope. Several also noted the need for a current,
searchable library of City standards, details,
checklists, and design requirements.

Predictability of Timelines Applicants reported uncertainty about when reviews begin, how long reviews and resubmittals
will take, and when decisions can be escalated.

Several examples involved lengthy waits for
supervisor-level decisions or department
clearances.

Re-submittals Applicants described resubmittals receiving new or duplicate comments rather than being limited
to verification of prior corrections. Several
recommended routing resubmittals back to the
original reviewer and giving resubmittals higher
priority in the queue.

Interdepartmental Coordination Applicants described bottlenecks when plans are routed to departments with no apparent

Bakersfield Permitting Study 9 | P a g e

comments, when reviewers issue duplicative
comments, or when staff cannot help resolve
comments issued by another reviewer.

Portal Usability Applicants generally appreciated online access and workflow visibility, but some found switching
between systems confusing and noted that
workflow transparency is limited if reviewers do
not accept tasks until they are ready to work on
them.

Overall Customer Experience Feedback emphasized a desire for more accessible decision-makers, better-trained and more
consistent plan checkers, clearer escalation paths,
and a City posture that helps applicants resolve
issues without weakening adopted standards.

4. Conclusions
Overall, it is evident through recent technology implementations (e.g. Clariti and Symbium), organizational structures, and the ask for this report that Bakersfield is focused on improving it’s applicant experiences and outcomes.

In every jurisdiction spoken to and / or researched, there are similar types of complaints or observations relating to the human component of these processes – applicants and staff are humans that misunderstand, misinterpret, make mistakes, and create inco nsistency. The recommendations in this report – including guided navigation, an AI -assisted chatbot, and consolidation onto a single platform – are intended to reduce that friction by giving applicants and staff a shared, consistent source of information, not to replace judgment with rigid enforcement. Realizing the full benefit of these tools still depends on culture: technology can standardize information but only a mindset of “accountable participants” rather than a referee ensures staff use that added consistency to help applicants succeed.

While our report summarizes various key actions or practices from other jurisdictions, we would also implore the City to consider actions resulting from an overall mission of safe and successful development that indirectly benefits all constituents in our region.

Appendices

Appendix A – City of Bakersfield Current Process Review

Appendix A – City of Bakersfield Current Process Review CITY OF BAKERSFIELD — CURRENT-STATE PROFILE
Bakersfield, the subject of this benchmarking study, administers permitting through its Development Services Department, supported by a Development Center hub and several online tools: Clariti for applications and status, ProjectDox/Avolve for electronic plan review, Click2Gov for inspections, and Symbium for eligible instant permits.

The City publishes detailed application materials, planning processing estimates, and monthly building-activity reports, and has several permitting modernization efforts underway. This snapshot characterizes Bakersfield’s public-facing permitting process and the practices that stand out.

1. SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

ONLINE PORTAL
Clariti
The City's Community Service
Portal for applying for building
permits and planning applications,
checking application status, and
paying fees online.

ELECTRONIC PLAN REVIEW
ProjectDox (Avolve)
Upload plans and move through
prescreen, fee payment,
electronic plan review, and
comment response, accessed
through the Development Center.

INSTANT PERMITS
Symbium
Automated instant permits for
solar, energy storage, EV charging,
electrical service panels, reroofs,
and heat-pump installations,
issued in as little as 15 minutes.

INSPECTIONS
Click2Gov
Schedule or cancel inspections
and view inspection results online
for building permits.

2. PROCESS AT A GLANCE
Process dimension In Bakersfield
Online systems Clariti (Community Service Portal) for applications and status; ProjectDox/Avolve for electronic plan review; Click2Gov for inspection scheduling and results; Symbium for instant permits.

Applicant navigation Development Services (Planning, Building, and Economic & Community Development) with a Development Center hub gathering electronic plan review, forms, checklists, and self-serve maintenance permits.

Completeness / clock start Planning processing estimates are measured from the date an application is deemed complete, not the initial submittal date. For building permits, ProjectDox includes a prescreen step before substantive plan review proceeds.

Service standards The Planning Application Packet publishes estimated processing periods by application type, measured from a complete application; a building plan-review turnaround expressed in days is not published.

Decision authority Staff, Director, Planning Commission, City Council, and LAFCO paths are identified by application type in the Planning Application Packet.

Instant / expedited Symbium issues many common residential and minor commercial permits in as little as 15 minutes; the Development Center also offers self-serve maintenance permits.

Performance data Monthly Summary and Building Reports on the City records portal tabulate permits, units, and valuation by use category, with year-to-date totals (e.g., 12,614 permits through October 2022); no on-time-performance dashboard is published.

3. NOTABLE CURRENT PRACTICES

SYMBIUM INSTANT PERMITS
The City reports it is the first in the U.S. to use
Symbium for as many as a dozen permit types,
issuing most in as little as 15 minutes, covering
solar, storage, EV charging, panels, and
reroofs.

ELECTRONIC PLAN REVIEW VIA A

DEVELOPMENT CENTER HUB
ProjectDox/Avolve handles plan upload,
prescreen, fee payment, and comment
response, with forms, checklists, and training
resources in one Development Center.

PUBLISHED GUIDANCE WITH PROCESSING

ESTIMATES
The Planning Application Packet sets out
application categories, required materials,
special studies, public-notice rules, and
estimated processing periods, which many
peers do not publish.

Overview
This profile characterizes the City of Bakersfield's public-facing permitting process. Bakersfield is the subject of the benchmarking study, and this snapshot applies the same descriptive desktop method used for the peer jurisdictions: it documents how the City runs permitting across a consistent set of process dimensions, including intake, applicant visibility, completeness checks, plan review routing, resubmittal management, communications, technology, staffing, and published service standards, using only the City's public website and posted materials.

Bakersfield has an estimated population of approximately 422,853 (California Department of Finance, Report E-1, January 1, 2026) and administers permitting through its Development Services Department, which comprises the Planning Division, the Building Division, and the Economic and Community Development Division. The City publishes a substantial body of application materials and process guidance, operates a largely online permitting front end, and has several modernization efforts underway.

This profile records Bakersfield's practices descriptively and flags the ones that stand out. The side-by-side comparison across the cities is compiled separately.

1. Approach
This review examined Bakersfield's permitting process as a developer, applicant, design professional, or member of the public would encounter it, entirely through the City's public website and publicly posted materials, including the Development Services, Development Center, Building, Planning, and Applications & Fees pages, the Planning Application Packet and process documents, and the City's online systems (Clariti, ProjectDox, Click2Gov, and Symbium), mirroring the desktop method used across the study.

Where the City's public materials did not disclose a given practice, that limitation is noted rather than inferred.

Bakersfield administers permitting through its Development Services Department, organized into Planning, Building, and Economic & Community Development. The City states a goal of being “the most business-friendly city in California,” and its public materials show an active modernization agenda, electronic permitting and paperless inspections, a development-process efficiency study, a developer advisory group, and a one-stop-shop effort. Population figures are California Department of Finance Report E-1 estimates as of January 1, 2026.

2. Current-State Characterization
Intake and application procedures
Applicants can apply online through the City's Clariti Community Service Portal or, for eligible work, obtain instant permits through the Symbium platform. The Development Center serves as the hub for getting started, gathering electronic plan review, forms and checklists, regulatory documents, inspections, and self-serve maintenance permits in one place. Planning applications are submitted through the City's electronic submittal process, and the Building Division directs most non-exempt structures, alterations, signs, and site work through Planning Review before the building application is accepted. Standardized application packets and checklists are published for the major application types. The City's applicant- facing Development Center hub is shown in Figure A-1.

Figure A-1. The Development Center is the City's getting-started hub, with access to the Electronic Plan Review System, guidance documents, submittal checklists, and training resources.

Visibility to applicants
Through the Clariti portal, applicants can apply for building permits and planning applications, check the status of an application, and pay fees online; Click2Gov provides inspection scheduling and results.

The Development Center publishes getting-started guidance, submittal checklists and worksheets, FAQs, and electronic-plan-review training videos so applicants can see what is required before they submit, and the Planning Application Packet consolidates application categories, required materials, and estimated processing periods in a single document. The City's applicant guidance is distributed across several pages, PDFs, and online systems. The related building-permit portal entry point is shown in Figure A-2.

Figure A-2. The Building Permits page directs applicants to the Clariti Customer Portal to apply for and check the status of building permits and to pay fees online.

Completeness checks and review start
For planning entitlements, the City's published processing estimates begin once an application is deemed complete, generally about 30 days after submittal, and the Planning Application Packet sets out the materials, signatures, special studies, and public-notice obligations a complete application requires.

For building permits, ProjectDox runs a prescreen that confirms completeness and fees before substantive plan review begins. The City defines completeness through the published packet and the prescreen step; the start of the formal review clock is thus a distinct milestone from first submittal. The Planning Application Packet and related process links are shown in Figure A-3.

Figure A-3. The Applications & Fees page links the Planning Application Packet and process documents that define what a complete application must include and the estimated processing periods that follow.

Plan review routing
Building plan review is conducted electronically through ProjectDox (Avolve), which guides upload, verification, application numbering, prescreen, fee payment, and comment response; Development Services, Public Works, and Fire Department staff review through the same system. Planning entitlements run through the Planning Division's electronic submittal process, with referrals to other departments and outside agencies as a project requires. For larger projects, the City's fee schedule indicates that Site Plan Review includes three review rounds, with additional fees for further rounds. The electronic planning submittal entry point is shown in Figure A-4.

Figure A-4. Planning applications are submitted through the City's electronic Planning Application submittal process, complementing the ProjectDox electronic plan review used for building permits.

Resubmittal management
Resubmittals and corrections are handled through ProjectDox, which uses prescreen comments and action items to route correction responses, and the City's published checklists and worksheets give applicants a standing reference for the items most likely to drive corrections. The fee schedule's three-

review structure for Site Plan Review establishes how many rounds are included before additional fees apply. The City's public materials do not publish a separate resubmittal turnaround target.

Applicant communications
Bakersfield's applicant-facing channels include the Development Services counter at 1715 Chester Avenue, open weekdays, the Clariti portal, and the Development Center's published guidance, training videos, and FAQs. Project-specific handouts and process documents are posted for major application types, and the City directs applicant questions to division email contacts. The City emphasizes a business- friendly posture, stating a goal of being “the most business-friendly city in California.” Technology tools
Bakersfield operates a largely online permitting front end built on four systems: Clariti for applications and status, ProjectDox/Avolve for electronic plan review, Click2Gov for inspection scheduling and results, and Symbium for instant permits. The Symbium platform, launched in 2025, uses automated compliance checks to issue eligible permits in as little as 15 minutes; the City reports it is the first city in the U.S. to use Symbium for as many as a dozen permit types, covering solar, energy storage, EV charging, electrical service panels, reroofs, and heat-pump installations. The City notes it has permitted and inspected more than 70,000 solar and battery-storage systems over the past 20 years and continues to receive 100 to 200 new applications each week.

Figure A-5 City officials mark the 2025 launch of the Symbium instant-permitting platform, which the City describes as issuing permits across many project types in as little as 15 minutes.

Staffing approach
Bakersfield administers permitting through its Development Services Department, organized into the Planning Division, the Building Division, and the Economic and Community Development Division. The high solar and storage volume the City cites, more than 70,000 systems permitted and inspected over 20 years, with 100 to 200 new applications weekly, is part of the workload that motivated the move to automated instant permitting. Comparative staffing capacity, expressed as building and plan-check FTE per 10,000 residents, is compiled separately in the study's screening data.

Published service standards and timelines
Bakersfield's most fully developed published standard is its set of planning processing estimates. The Planning Application Packet publishes estimated processing periods by application type, measured from the point an application is deemed complete, guidance many jurisdictions do not provide. Because those estimates run from completeness and can be extended by special studies, environmental review, and public noticing, they describe routine timing rather than a guaranteed end-to-end duration. Certain inputs can extend a schedule: traffic studies require a minimum of five weeks when needed, and water- availability letters, CEQA review, public hearings, City Council action, and LAFCO review apply to specific project types. For building permits the City does not publish a plan-review turnaround expressed in days, while the Symbium path issues eligible permits in as little as 15 minutes. This is recorded as a descriptive observation about what the City publishes, not an assessment of actual review speed.

Performance transparency
The City publishes a monthly building-activity record through its public records portal: a Building Reports library (Development Services, Building, Public Access) holds monthly Summary Reports that tabulate permits, units, and valuation by use category, with monthly and year-to-date totals compared against the prior year, alongside companion monthly Building Reports listing issued permits by address.

The series runs back to the early 2000s and is kept current; the October 2022 Summary Report, for example, records 12,614 permits issued year-to-date citywide, valued at roughly $715 million. Inspection scheduling and results are separately accessible through Click2Gov, and City communications cite longer- run activity such as more than 70,000 solar and storage systems permitted and inspected over 20 years.

What the City's public materials do not include is an on-time-performance dashboard that measures review or inspection timeliness against a published turnaround target. The monthly building-activity reporting format is shown in Figure A-6.

Figure A-6. The City publishes monthly Summary Reports tabulating permits, units, and valuation by use category, with monthly and year-to- date totals against the prior year (October 2022 shown).

3. Differentiators and Best-Practice Examples
The practices below stand out in Bakersfield's current program and are recorded as notable strengths.

They describe what the City does today; the side-by-side comparison with the peer cities, and any options drawn from it, are addressed separately.
• Symbium instant permits. The City reports it is the first in the U.S. to use Symbium for as many as a dozen permit types, issuing the majority in as little as 15 minutes, covering solar, energy storage, EV charging, electrical service panels, reroofs, and heat-pump installations. • Electronic plan review through a Development Center hub. ProjectDox/Avolve supports plan upload, prescreen, fee payment, and comment response, gathered with forms, checklists, training videos, and regulatory documents in one Development Center.
• A largely online front end. Clariti handles applications and status, Click2Gov handles inspection scheduling and results, and Symbium handles instant permits, so routine transactions can be completed online.
• Published application guidance with processing estimates. The Planning Application Packet sets out application categories, required materials, special studies, public-notice obligations, and estimated processing periods once an application is complete.
• Self-serve maintenance permits. The Development Center offers self-serve entry for eligible maintenance permits, complementing the Symbium instant path for routine work.

• Published monthly building-activity reports. The City posts monthly Summary Reports breaking permits, units, and valuation down by use category, with year-to-date and prior-year comparisons, in a public records library that runs back to the early 2000s. • An active modernization agenda. Public materials show a development-process efficiency study, a developer advisory group, permit-timeline commitments, and a one-stop-shop effort underway.

In short, Bakersfield's distinguishing strengths are its Symbium instant-permitting platform, its electronic plan review through a consolidated Development Center, its published application guidance with estimated processing periods, and detailed monthly building-activity reporting, supported by a largely online front end for applications, payments, and inspections. As across the study, the City does not publish a building plan-review turnaround expressed in days.

Sources1
City of Bakersfield (official)
– Development Services Department (Planning, Building, and Economic & Community Development divisions; counter at 1715 Chester Avenue). https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/183/Development- Services
– Development Center (Electronic Plan Review System; getting started; forms and checklists; self- serve maintenance permits; regulatory documents; inspections). https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/1057/Development-Center
– Building Permits (Clariti Customer Portal for applications and status; online fee payment). https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/1158/Building-Permits
– Electronic Planning Application Submittal Process (online submittal for planning applications). https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/1075/Electronic-Planning-Application – Applications & Fees (Clariti Community Service Portal; Planning Application Packet; Site Plan Review process; fee schedule). https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/278/Applications-Fees – “City launches instant permitting system with Symbium,” City News (ribbon cutting July 18, 2025; first U.S. city to use Symbium for as many as a dozen permit types; majority of permits in as little as 15 minutes; eligible project types). https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/917/City- News?contentId=ccd4733f-fe13-46e2-96d9-352222574149
– Click2Gov Building Permit portal (inspection scheduling and results). https://bakeweb.ci.bakersfield.ca.us/Click2GovBP/index.html – Building Reports library, City records portal (monthly Summary Reports and Building Reports tabulating permits, units, and valuation by use category; Development Services › Building › Public Access › Building Reports; October 2022 Summary Report cited). https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=647982&dbid=0 Project and reference sources
– California Department of Finance, Report E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2026 (released May 1, 2026), via the project peer-city screening workbook.
– Cornerstone peer-city screening workbook (Development Services organization; comparative building and plan-check staffing capacity).

1 City webpages and documents were accessed June 25–26, 2026.

Appendix B – Peer City Reports

Appendix B.1 - Corona
CITY OF CORONA — PEER CITY PROFILE
Corona runs a digitally consolidated permitting program: most applicant transactions flow through a single portal (eTRAKiT), supported by an interactive permit checklist, project-type flowcharts, and public performance dashboards. This snapshot characterizes how Corona runs permitting and the practices that stand out.

1. SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

UNIFIED PORTAL
eTRAKiT
One primary portal to
apply, pay fees, check
plan-check and permit
status, search permit
history, and schedule
inspections.

GUIDED CHECKLIST
Permit Checklist
A personalized interactive
permit checklist built
from a few questions,
paired with project-type
flowcharts and a Gantt
chart.

INSTANT / EXPEDITED
Symbium + Expedited
Fast-tracks routine solar
(Symbium) and EV
permits, with standard-
plan packages and
eligibility checklists.

TRANSPARENCY
CorStat Dashboards
Public dashboards publish
permit volumes and plan-
check turnaround, plus
monthly building reports.

2. PROCESS AT A GLANCE
Process dimension In Corona
Online systems One portal (eTRAKiT) for apply, pay, status, permit history, and inspection scheduling.

Applicant navigation Interactive permit checklist plus project-type flowcharts and a new- residential Gantt chart.

Completeness / clock start Plan-check review begins once plan-check fees are confirmed paid; a submittal checklist is required.

Service standards Building plan-check targets: 10 business days on first review, 5 business days per resubmittal, approval by the third review, and one-day inspection notice.

Performance data Public CorStat dashboards: permit volumes and plan-check turnaround (≈96% of reviews returned on time).

Instant / expedited Standard-plan solar and EV packages with eligibility checklists; Symbium for solar.

3. NOTABLE PRACTICES (CANDIDATE BEST PRACTICES)

UNIFIED PORTAL
eTRAKiT consolidates apply, pay,
status, permit history, and
inspection scheduling in a single
system.

GUIDED NAVIGATION
A personalized interactive permit
checklist and project-type
flowcharts route applicants from
project type to the requirements
that apply to them.

PUBLIC DASHBOARDS
CorStat publishes permit volumes
and plan-check turnaround,
including the share of reviews
returned on time, as open public
data.

Overview
This profile characterizes the City of Corona's public-facing permitting process as one of the five peer jurisdictions in the benchmarking study. It is a descriptive desktop review: it documents how Corona runs permitting across a consistent set of process dimensions: intake, applicant visibility, completeness checks, plan review routing, resubmittal management, communications, technology, staffing, and published service standards, using only Corona's public website and posted materials.

This profile records Corona's practices descriptively and flags the ones that stand out as candidate best-practice examples. The side-by-side comparison across the peer cities is compiled separately.

Population figures are California Department of Finance Report E-1 estimates as of January 1, 2026.

1. Approach
This review examined Corona's permitting process as a developer, applicant, or design professional would encounter it, entirely through the City's public website and publicly posted materials, mirroring the desktop method used across the study so the peer jurisdictions can be characterized on consistent terms.

Where Corona's public materials did not disclose a given practice, that limitation is noted rather than inferred.

Corona serves an estimated population of approximately 159,309 (California Department of Finance, Report E-1, January 1, 2026) and organizes permitting under a single Planning & Development Department with four divisions: Planning, Building, Development Services, and Code Compliance. Counter and online services are centralized at 400 South Vicentia Avenue, and related Utilities, Fire, and Riverside County Health requirements are linked within the permitting workflow rather than handled at a single counter.

2. Current-State Characterization
Intake and application procedures
Applicants apply, pay fees, and check status through eTRAKiT, the City's electronic permit portal.

Building applicants are guided by project-type flowcharts (ADU, new residential, room addition, tenant improvement, new commercial and industrial, and commercial cannabis) and a personalized interactive permit checklist. Planning applicants use a separate Planning Division applications page that functions more like a document library, with application forms, checklists and related planning materials organized by document title. This provides access to a broad range of planning materials, but it is less guided than the project-type flowcharts and interactive checklist available on the building side.

Figure B 1-1. Corona's planning applications library lists 80+ forms alphabetically by document name, a less guided entry point than the project- type flowcharts on the building side.

Visibility to applicants
Corona exposes permit history search and plan-check status through eTRAKiT without requiring a login for basic record viewing, and it guides applicants with a personalized interactive permit checklist, project-type flowcharts, and a new-residential Gantt chart that lays out the sequence of steps. Together, these give an applicant a view of both where a project stands and what the path ahead looks like.

Figure B1-2. Corona's interactive Permit Guide walks an applicant from project type to a tailored submittal checklist.

Completeness checks and review start
Corona states that plan-check processing does not begin until plan-check fees are confirmed paid, a point made on the City's expedited-permit page, and a submittal checklist governs what constitutes a complete package. The trigger for the review clock is therefore explicit: fee confirmation plus a complete submittal.

Figure B1-3. Corona's expedited-permit page lists standard-plan packages for EV charging, solar PV, and water heating, and is where the City notes that plan-check processing begins only once fees are confirmed paid.

Plan review routing
Corona's Development Services division, staffed by civil engineers and permit technicians, handles grading, maps, SB9 lot splits, water quality management plans, and right-of-way work, while the Building Division runs plan check and uses outside plan-check consultants under published review guidelines.

Routing is thus split between an in-house engineering function and a building plan-check function that blends staff and contracted reviewers.

Resubmittal management
Corona publishes a dedicated resubmittal checklist and a plan-check FAQ of commonly missed items, and frames its process around a goal of approval by or on the third review. The published resubmittal guidance and the stated review-count goal give applicants an explicit target for how correction cycles are expected to resolve.

Figure B1-4. Plan-check submittal requirements and a dedicated resubmittal checklist are published up front, organized by project type.

Applicant communications
Corona offers eTRAKiT video tutorials, pre-construction meetings for new construction, a digital counter-queue system, and a plan-check customer-service survey tied to the permit number. The structured feedback survey and the counter-queue tool are notable applicant-facing touchpoints.

Figure B1-5. The Planning & Development page leads with a digital counter-queue (“Skip the line”) and direct division contacts.

Technology tools
Corona consolidates most functions in eTRAKiT and supplements it with a personalized interactive permit checklist, Symbium and in-house expedited packages for instant and fast-track permits, a digital counter-queue system, HdL for business licensing, and CorStat public dashboards. The single-portal model keeps most applicant tasks, apply, pay, status, history, and inspections, within one system.

Figure B1-6. eTRAKiT is the single front end for apply, pay, plan-check and permit status, permit-history search, and inspection scheduling.

Staffing approach
Corona operates a hybrid building and plan-check staffing model, pairing in-house engineers and examiners with managed third-party plan-check contracts. The peer-screening data records approximately 17 authorized building and plan-check FTE for FY24-25, about 1.07 staff per 10,000 residents. This figure should be read as an estimate: it counts authorized in-house positions, but the personnel applied through contracted plan-check work cannot be confirmed from public data, so it understates effective review capacity.

Published service standards and timelines
Corona publishes a specific, committed plan-review turnaround standard. The Building Division's stated goal is to meet or exceed review times of 10 business days on first submittal and 5 business days on every resubmittal; each submittal adds one business day for routing to plan review and one business day after the review for processing, and once plans are approved the Division allows up to three business days to prepare for permit issuance, with larger or complex multi-building projects potentially taking additional time. The City pairs this numeric standard with a goal of approval by or on the third review and inspections on one day's notice, and the Building Division posts at least one sample project timeline, a New Residential Construction Gantt Chart, that illustrates the expected sequence and duration of a typical project. Corona also publishes its actual measured performance against this standard, described under Performance transparency below.

Figure B1-7. Corona publishes its plan-review standard, 10 business days on first submittal, 5 on resubmittal, and benchmarks it against neighboring cities on its dashboard (figures as published by Corona).

Figure B1-8. Corona's published New Residential Construction Gantt chart lays out a sample project timeline and ties it to the City's goal of approval within three plan reviews.

Performance transparency
Corona publishes building-permit activity as open public data through its CorStat Building Division dashboard. The dashboard reports permit volumes, applied, issued, and finaled, as live year-to-date counts (1,842 applied, 1,763 issued, and 1,454 finaled for 2026 as of the review) and trends them month over month, and it defines each permit status in plain language for the public.

The same dashboard publishes plan-check review performance measured against that standard:
average time in review by submittal round (about 4.74 days on first submittals and 3.64 days on resubmittals in the latest month, both inside the 10- and 5-business-day targets) and the share of reviews returned on time (about 96 percent), each trended over time. Publishing both the committed standard and the actual performance against it as live public metrics is a notable transparency practice.

Figure B1-9. Corona's CorStat Building Division dashboard publishes permit volumes and month-over-month trends as open public data, with plain-language definitions of applied, issued, and finaled.

Figure B1-10. The same dashboard publishes plan-check review performance, average days in review on first and resubmittal rounds and the percentage of reviews returned on time, trended month over month.

3. Differentiators and Best-Practice Examples
The practices below stand out in Corona's program and are recorded as candidate best-practice examples. They describe what Corona does; they are not recommendations for Corona, and whether any of them would suit Bakersfield is left to be addressed separately. • Single-portal model. Corona consolidates apply, pay, status, permit history, and inspection scheduling in eTRAKiT, keeping most applicant tasks in one system. • Project-type navigation. A personalized interactive permit checklist and project-type flowcharts give applicants a guided path from project type to the requirements that apply. • Public performance dashboards. CorStat publishes permit volumes and plan-check turnaround, including the share of reviews returned on time, as open public data. • Explicit, numeric service commitments. Corona publishes a committed plan-review turnaround standard, 10 business days on first submittal and 5 on each resubmittal, alongside a third-review approval goal and one-day inspection notice, and reports its measured performance against that standard.
• Standard-plan expedited packages. Corona offers expedited solar and EV packages with standard plans and eligibility checklists, and identifies Symbium for solar permits, to streamline routine work.

In short, Corona's distinguishing strengths are system consolidation, guided applicant navigation, and public performance transparency.

Sources1
City of Corona (official)
– Planning & Development Department. https://www.coronaca.gov/departments/planning-and- development
– Building Division. https://www.coronaca.gov/departments/building-division – Planning Division, Applications. https://www.coronaca.gov/departments/planning-and- development/planning-division/applications
– Development Services Division. https://www.coronaca.gov/departments/planning-and- development/development-services
– Plan Check Submittal Requirements. https://www.coronaca.gov/departments/building- division/plan-check-submittal-requirements
– Expedited Permits. https://www.coronaca.gov/departments/building-division/expedited-permits – Permit Guide (interactive checklist). https://app.oncamino.com/corona-ca/ – eTRAKiT permit portal. https://etrakit.coronaca.gov/etrakit – Corona Open Performance (CorStat), Building Division Dashboard. https://corstat.coronaca.gov/stories/s/Building-Division-Dashboard/k78n-it9q Project and reference sources
– California Department of Finance, Report E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2026 (released May 1, 2026), via the project peer-city screening workbook.

Cornerstone peer-city screening workbook, Capacity (Staffing) tab (building and plan-check core, FY2024-25).

1 City webpages were accessed June 15, 2026.

Appendix B.2 - Fresno
CITY OF FRESNO — PEER CITY PROFILE
Fresno, the largest city in the San Joaquin Valley peer set, runs a complexity-tiered permitting program:
applicants are sorted into four project levels, each with a published review-timeframe target, transacting through the Accela Citizen Access portal. The City publishes its performance annually in the Red Carpet Report. This snapshot characterizes Fresno's public-facing permitting process and the practices that stand out.

1. SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

ONLINE PORTAL
Accela Citizen Access
Online portal to create,
submit, and search
applications, check
status, comments and
due dates, submit
backcheck/addenda,
schedule inspections, and
pay fees.

TIERED PROCESS
Four Project Levels
Projects are sorted by
complexity into four
levels, each with a
published review-
timeframe target; the
simplest are approved
same day.

INSTANT / EXPEDITED
SolarAPP+ & Express
SolarAPP+ issues instantly
approved residential solar
permits; same-day
express permits for
electrical, mechanical,
and plumbing.

TRANSPARENCY
Red Carpet Report
Annual report publishes
applications, completed
reviews, permits issued,
percent completed on
time, valuation, and a
customer-service rating.

2. PROCESS AT A GLANCE
Process dimension In Fresno
Online systems Accela Citizen Access (ACA), apply, pay, check status and due dates, submit backcheck/addenda, schedule inspections (24/7).

Applicant navigation Four complexity-based project levels, each with a published review- timeframe target; Building and Planning process booklets.

Completeness / clock start The building process materials state that building applications receive a completeness review before acceptance for plan check; planning applications also use published intake/review procedures, but the completeness language should be kept tied to the applicable process materials
Service standards Published review targets by level, building 3 / 14 / 21 / 28 business days; planning over-the-counter to 100 days; back-check 10 days.

Performance data Red Carpet Report: 95% of planning reviews and 99% of building reviews completed on time (CY2023); monthly building activity reports.

Instant / expedited SolarAPP+ instantly approved solar permits; same-day express electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits.

3. NOTABLE PRACTICES

COMPLEXITY-TIERED PROCESS
Four project levels, each with a
published review-timeframe
target, tell applicants the expected
timeline up front; the simplest
projects are approved the same
day over the counter.

PUBLISHED PERFORMANCE
The annual Red Carpet Report
publishes applications, completed
reviews, permits issued, percent
completed on time, construction
valuation, and a customer-service
rating.

ONE-STOP COMPLEX REVIEW
A Development Review Committee
convenes the reviewing
departments together to give
complex projects concise,
consolidated preliminary feedback.

Overview
This profile characterizes the City of Fresno's public-facing permitting process as one of the five peer jurisdictions in the benchmarking study. It is a descriptive desktop review: it documents how Fresno runs permitting across a consistent set of process dimensions: intake, applicant visibility, completeness checks, plan review routing, resubmittal management, communications, technology, staffing, and published service standards, using only Fresno's public website and posted materials.

Fresno is the largest city in the San Joaquin Valley peer set, with an estimated population of approximately 560,948 (California Department of Finance, Report E-1, January 1, 2026). It permits under a Planning and Development Department whose Building and Safety and Current Planning each use a four-level, complexity-tiered review framework supported by Accela Citizen Access, with separate level definitions and timelines for building and planning reviews. This profile records Fresno's practices descriptively and flags the ones that stand out as candidate best-practice examples. The side-by-side comparison across the peer cities is compiled separately.

1. Approach
This review examined Fresno's permitting process as a developer, applicant, or design professional would encounter it, entirely through the City's public website and publicly posted materials, the Building and Safety and Current Planning pages, the published Building & Safety and Planning process booklets, the Accela Citizen Access portal, and the City's Red Carpet performance reports, mirroring the desktop method used across the study. Where Fresno's public materials did not disclose a given practice, that limitation is noted rather than inferred.

Fresno organizes permitting under a Planning and Development Department. The Building and Safety Division handles building permits and inspections, and the Current Planning Division handles entitlements; both share the same four-level, complexity-based process and the Accela Citizen Access (ACA) portal, with in-person service at City Hall by appointment through the QLess queue system.

2. Current-State Characterization
Intake and application procedures
Applicants apply, pay fees, and check status through the ACA, the City's online portal, which is available 24/7 to create, submit, and search applications, obtain status, comments, and due dates, submit backcheck and addenda, schedule inspections, and pay invoices. In person, the City offers same-day express permits for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work, general construction and zoning information, application submittal assistance, and public document review at City Hall, with appointments scheduled through the QLess queue system. New building permit applications are assigned a “B Record,” and back-checks, resubmittals, and addenda an “AD Record.”

Figure. Fresno's Building and Safety page leads with its “Get to Yes” service culture, the SolarAPP+ instant-solar option, and the Accela Citizen Access online services available 24/7.

Visibility to applicants
Through Accela Citizen Access, applicants can obtain application status, reviewer comments, and due dates, and track each review online. The City publishes Building & Safety and Planning process booklets that lay out the steps and the review-timeframe target for each project level, and during review the compiled plan-check correction list is published on the record online. Fresno also posts monthly building activity reports and the annual Red Carpet Report so applicants and the public can see volumes and on- time performance.

Figure. The Building Services and Reports page sets out the four-level process and links the City's published building activity reports.

Completeness checks and review start
Every application receives a completeness review before it is accepted for plan check. If the submittal set is deemed incomplete, the applicant is contacted with an “Additional Information is Required” status and must upload the requested items to ACA and notify staff before the plans are routed. If the set is complete, the plans are stamped “Received” and routed for review. Plan-check fees invoiced at submittal must be paid before the plans are routed, so fee payment plus a complete submittal is the explicit trigger to start review.

Figure. Fresno's published building review process: an applicant applies through ACA, a completeness review gates acceptance, and a complete set is stamped “Received” and routed.

Plan review routing
Fresno sorts projects into four complexity levels, each with an optimized process: the simplest are approved the same day or over the counter, while more complex projects can meet with the Development Review Committee, the reviewing departments convened together, for consolidated preliminary feedback. Once routed, plans are reviewed in parallel by the applicable disciplines, which can include Fire, Planning, Building, Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Title-24, Solar, Public Utilities, and Public Works; correction comments from each reviewer are compiled into a single plan-check correction list.

Resubmittal management
Corrections are compiled into one plan-check correction list published on the online record, and the applicant is given instructions on how to submit revised plans. Resubmittals run as a back-check on the

ACA portal, where the City asks applicants to slip-sheet only the revised sheets into the previously stamped set to avoid re-routing to every discipline. Fresno publishes the resubmittal review targets: back- checks are reviewed within 10 business days and addendums or field revisions within 14 business days, and resubmittals also pass through a completeness check before routing.

Applicant communications
Fresno frames its service around a “We Work For You” culture and a commitment to “Get to Yes,” supported by ACA how-to videos, in-person submittal assistance and public document review, and QLess- scheduled appointments. The City reports a customer-service experience rating of 4.6 out of 5 in its most recent Red Carpet Report, indicating a structured feedback mechanism tied to the service experience.

Technology tools
Fresno's core platform is Accela Citizen Access, which carries application intake, status, correction lists, inspection scheduling, and fee payment. It is complemented by SolarAPP+ for instantly approved residential solar permits, the QLess queue system for in-person appointments, and a library of City of Fresno “COF” standard plan templates (standard ADUs, patios, signs, and tract-home templates) that route simpler projects into the faster levels.

Figure. SolarAPP+ provides instantly approved residential solar permits, with same-day express permits available for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work.

Staffing approach
The peer-screening data records approximately 60 building and plan-check FTE for FY24-25, about

1.07 staff per 10,000 residents, in an in-house model. This figure should be read as an estimate: it reflects the building division total and may bundle some administrative positions that are not separately itemized, so it is a slightly broader measure than a strictly itemized plan-check core.

Published service standards and timelines
Fresno publishes review-timeframe targets for every project level, on both the building and planning sides. On the building side, Level 1 work (such as electrical, mechanical, and plumbing, residential solar, and standard patios and signs) carries a completeness review of 2-3 business days and a review timeline of up to 3 business days, with some approved the same day; Level 2 is up to 14 business days, Level 3 up to 21, and Level 4 up to 28. On the planning side, project levels range from over-the-counter zone clearances to 14, 30, 45, 75, and 100 business days, with additional time for projects not exempt from CEQA, as defined in the City's Policy and Procedures G-003. Resubmittal targets are likewise published: 10 business days for back-checks and 14 for addendums and field revisions.

Figure. Fresno publishes building review-timeframe targets by project level, up to 3, 14, 21, and 28 business days for Levels 1 through 4.

Figure. Planning review timelines are published the same way, from over-the-counter to 100 business days by project level (per Policy G-003).

Performance transparency
Fresno publishes its permitting performance as open data through the annual Red Carpet Report and monthly building activity reports. The most recent annual report (calendar year 2023) records, on the planning side, 6,631 applications submitted and 20,392 completed reviews with 95 percent completed on time; on the building side, 15,281 permits issued with 99 percent completed on time and roughly $749.7 million in new-construction valuation; and, on service, 10,956 in-person appointments and a 4.6-out-of-5 customer-service rating. Publishing both the per-level review targets and the share of reviews completed on time lets the public see performance against the City's own standards.

Figure. Fresno's annual Red Carpet Report publishes planning, building, and service metrics, applications, completed reviews, permits issued, percent completed on time, valuation, and customer-service rating.

3. Differentiators and Best-Practice Examples
The practices below stand out in Fresno's program and are recorded as candidate best-practice examples. They describe what Fresno does; they are not recommendations for Fresno, and whether any of them would suit Bakersfield is left to be addressed separately.

• Complexity-tiered process with published timeframes. Fresno sorts projects into four levels, each with a published review-timeframe target, so applicants know the expected timeline at intake; the simplest projects are approved the same day or over the counter. • Published performance reporting. The annual Red Carpet Report and monthly building activity reports publish application and permit volumes, percent of reviews completed on time, construction valuation, and a customer-service rating.
• One-stop preliminary feedback for complex projects. The Development Review Committee convenes the reviewing departments together to give complex projects consolidated, concise preliminary feedback before formal submittal.
• Single 24/7 portal. Accela Citizen Access carries application intake, status, correction lists, resubmittals, inspection scheduling, and fee payment in one system. • Instant and express paths. SolarAPP+ issues instantly approved residential solar permits, and same- day express permits are available for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work. • Standard plan templates. City of Fresno standard templates for ADUs, patios, signs, and tract homes route routine projects into the faster review levels.

In short, Fresno's distinguishing strengths are its complexity-tiered process with published review timeframes and its public performance reporting through the Red Carpet Report1.

Sources2
City of Fresno (official)
– Planning and Development Department. https://www.fresno.gov/planning/ – Building and Safety Division. https://www.fresno.gov/planning/building-and-safety/ – Building Services and Reports (building activity reports). https://www.fresno.gov/planning/building- and-safety/building-services-and-reports/
– Building & Safety Process booklet (four project levels and review process), 2023. https://www.fresno.gov/planning/building-and-safety/
– Planning Process booklet (planning project levels; Policy and Procedures G-003), 2023. https://www.fresno.gov/planning/
– Get an Instantly Approved Solar Permit through SolarAPP+. https://www.fresno.gov/planning/get- an-instantly-approved-solar-permit-through-solar-app/
– ACA permit portal. https://aca-prod.accela.com/FRESNO/ – Red Carpet Report (Planning & Development), Calendar Year 2023. https://www.fresno.gov/planning/
Project and reference sources
– California Department of Finance, Report E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2026 (released May 1, 2026), via the project peer-city screening workbook.
– Cornerstone peer-city screening workbook, Capacity (Staffing) tab (building and plan-check division total, FY2024-25).

1 Red Carpet Report
2 City webpages and documents were accessed June 23, 2026.

Appendix B.3 - Ontario
CITY OF ONTARIO — PEER CITY PROFILE
Ontario is a fast-growing, development-intensive Inland Empire city, home to Ontario Ranch, which the City describes as the largest master-planned community in Southern California. It permits through a consolidated Community Development organization using Accela Citizen Access for applications, status, fees, inspections, and department modules, and uses Symbium for automated residential solar, energy-storage, and re-roof permit pathways. This snapshot characterizes Ontario's public-facing permitting process and the practices that stand out.

1. SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

ONLINE PORTAL
Accela Citizen Access
Start applications, search an
address, check application status,
pay fees, schedule inspections,
and access City maps and GIS,
spanning Building, Engineering,
Planning, and Fire.

INSTANT PERMITTING
Symbium Real-Time
Automated path for eligible
residential solar, energy storage
under 38.4 kW, and detached
single-family re-roofs, including
instant solar plan-review approval.

ELECTRONIC PLAN REVIEW
Citizen Portal Access
Electronic plan submittal and
resubmittal through Citizen Portal
Access, supported by published
submittal and user guides.

TRANSPARENCY
Activity Reports
Monthly building and planning
activity reports, plus standardized
plan-check correction lists.

2. PROCESS AT A GLANCE
Process dimension In Ontario
Online systems Accela Citizen Access supports applications, address search, status checks, inspections, City maps/GIS and fee payment through a linked payment portal.

Applicant navigation Community Development counter by appointment; ACA includes Building, Engineering, Planning and Fire modules; published guides and correction lists support self-service.

Completeness / clock start Plan-check fees are collected at submittal; public materials state that plan check expires 12 months after fee payment but do not define a separate completeness or clock-start standard.

Service standards No published day-based turnaround target for standard plan review; fastest published paths are Symbium for eligible residential work and same-day over-the-counter review for some minor plan changes.

Performance data Building reports show permit counts, valuation, square footage and units by category with prior-year comparisons; planning reports identify applications and actions by file, project, decision body and action/action required.

Instant / expedited Symbium provides instant solar plan-review approval and automated or streamlined paths for eligible energy-storage and detached single-family re-roof permits; some minor plan changes may be handled over the counter.

3. NOTABLE PRACTICES (CANDIDATE BEST PRACTICES)

REAL-TIME INSTANT PERMITTING
Through a 2025 partnership with Symbium,
Ontario issues instant solar plan-review
approvals and streamlined permits for
residential solar, energy storage under 38.4
kW, and detached single-family re-roofs, an
instant path broader than solar alone.

ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL & RESUBMITTAL
Plans are submitted and resubmitted
electronically through Accela Citizen Portal
Access, supported by a published Electronic
Plan Submittal Guide and User Guide.

PUBLISHED CORRECTION LISTS & REPORTS
Standardized residential and non-residential
plan-check correction lists are posted, monthly
building and planning reports show workload,
project mix and entitlement actions, but not
review-cycle performance.

Overview
Ontario is a fast-growing city in San Bernardino County with an estimated population of approximately 187,8631. It is included in the peer set as a development-intensive, high-growth Inland Empire example rather than a population match: it has grown roughly 13 percent over the last decade and is home to Ontario Ranch, described by the City as the largest master-planned community in Southern California. It permits under a consolidated Community Development organization, with the Building and Planning divisions sharing the Accela Citizen Access online portal.

1. Approach
This review examined Ontario's permitting process as a developer, applicant, or design professional would encounter it, entirely through the City's public website and publicly posted materials.

Ontario organizes permitting within its Community Development organization. The Building division states that it “protects the lives and safety of Ontario residents and visitors through timely and professional plan review and inspection services,” and it shares the Accela Citizen Access (ACA) portal with Engineering, Planning, and Fire. Counter service at City Hall is offered by appointment.

2. Current-State Characterization
Intake and application procedures
Applicants use the ACA portal to start applications, search addresses, check status, schedule inspections, access maps/GIS, and pay fees through a linked payment portal. The Building landing page also routes applicants to appointment scheduling, ADUs, residential re-roof/solar, applications/resources, fees, permits/plans, and general requirements. Counter service is appointment-based, with posted hours and scheduled staff-meeting closures.

1 Estimates-E1 | California Department of Finance

Figure B3-1. Ontario's Building landing page states the division's “timely and professional plan review” mission and routes applicants to the Permit Portal, Payment Portal, and a Book an Appointment scheduler.

Visibility to applicants
The Building Permits and Plans page links to permit/plan-check status and posts residential and non- residential correction lists plus standard plans. These materials show common correction items before submittal. At the program level, building and planning activity reports show workload and project mix, but not review-cycle performance.

Figure B3-2. The Building Permits and Plans page links the status-checking Permit Portal and posts standardized residential and non-residential plan-check correction lists and standard plans.

Completeness checks and review start
Plans are submitted with the building-permit application. The City's FAQs state that a plan-review fee equal to 80 percent of the permit fee is collected at submittal and that plan check expires 12 months after the plan-check fee is paid. The public materials describe electronic document requirements, but do not define a separate completeness-screening standard or day-based clock start for plan review.

Plan review routing
Ontario conducts plan review electronically: applicants submit and resubmit through the ACA portal, supported by the Electronic Plan Submittal Guide, Citizen Portal Access User Guide, and Electronic Document Review Submittal Requirements. ACA includes Building, Engineering, Planning, and Fire modules; the public materials do not describe a separate cross-department routing sequence or consolidated comment process. Posted correction lists identify common residential and non-residential plan-check items.

Figure B3-3. The Building Applications & Resources page provides the Electronic Plan Submittal Guide and Citizen Portal Access User Guide for submitting and resubmitting electronically.

Resubmittal management
Resubmittals use the same electronic submittal guidance as the initial submittal. The FAQs state that some plan changes may be handled over the counter the same day, while others require resubmittal and an additional plan-check fee. Posted correction lists give applicants common items to address before submittal or resubmittal.

Applicant communications
Ontario's main applicant touchpoints are the appointment-based Building counter, ACA portal, linked payment portal, posted phone contacts, FAQs, guides, and correction lists. The Book an Appointment tool structures in-person service.

Technology tools
Ontario's core platform is the ACA portal, which carries application intake, address search, status checking, fee payment, inspection scheduling, and City maps and GIS, complemented by a separate online payment portal and the Book an Appointment system. Its most distinctive technology addition is a 2025 partnership with Symbium, an automated real-time permitting platform: contractors and homeowners can obtain instant solar plan-review approval and streamlined permits for residential roof-mounted solar, energy-storage systems under 38.4 kW, and detached single-family re-roofs, rather than waiting for manual review.

Figure B3-4. Accela Citizen Access is Ontario's online front end, start an application, search an address, schedule inspections, pay fees, check status, and reach City maps and GIS across Building, Engineering, Planning, and Fire.

Staffing approach
Approximately 22 building and plan-check core FTE for FY24-25, about 1.17 staff per 10,000 residents, in an in-house model, drawn from the City's Community Development personnel classification detail. This figure reflects the building and plan-check core boundary, permit technicians, plan checkers and examiners, building inspectors, and building supervision, and excludes planning, engineering, fire, and non-building administration; it carries a lower data-confidence flag in the screening workbook and should be read as an authorized-position estimate.

Published service standards and timelines
Ontario's public materials frame the Building division's mission around “timely and professional plan review,” but, unlike some peers, they do not publish a committed plan-review turnaround target expressed in days for standard projects. The principal time bound the City states is administrative: a plan check expires 12 months after the plan-check fee is paid. In place of a published day-based standard for

routine work, Ontario's fastest path is its Symbium real-time platform, which issues instant approvals for eligible residential solar, energy-storage, and re-roof permits, while minor plan changes can sometimes be resolved over the counter the same day. This is recorded as a descriptive observation about what the City publishes, not as an assessment of its actual review speed.

Figure B3-5. Ontario's Symbium “instant permit” path issues instantaneous approvals for residential solar, battery storage, and re-roof projects, the City's published fast path in lieu of a day-based standard for routine work.

Performance transparency
Ontario publishes recurring activity data rather than a service-level dashboard. The Building division posts monthly Building Permit Activity Reports going back to 2019. These reports provide more than a simple permit count: they break monthly building activity into categories such as residential alterations/additions, new commercial, new industrial, new multifamily, photovoltaic, single-family, tenant improvement and other permits, and report permit counts, valuation, square footage and units with prior-year comparison columns. This gives applicants, policymakers and the public a useful view of the scale and composition of Ontario’s building workload, including whether activity is being driven by routine high-volume permits, residential production, commercial/industrial development, tenant improvements or photovoltaic permits.

The monthly reports also provide useful context on the type of development workload moving through Ontario’s permitting system. In the May 2026 Building Department Activity Report, calendar- year-to-date activity through May totaled 3,043 permits and approximately $553.1 million in valuation, compared to 3,391 permits and approximately $565.1 million in valuation for the same prior-year period.

The overall permit count was lower, but the category mix shifted: new industrial permits increased from 3 to 11 and industrial valuation increased substantially; photovoltaic permits declined from 722 to 424; new multifamily activity declined from 167 permits and 886 units to 115 permits and 269 units; and single- family activity remained substantial, with 310 permits and approximately $101.8 million in valuation.

These figures suggest the reports are useful for understanding workload composition and development trends, even though they do not measure review-cycle performance, correction rounds or applicant wait times.

The Planning division also posts Monthly Activity Reports, separated into new applications and actions. These reports identify individual planning file numbers, project descriptions, applicants, locations, related files, required decision body and action taken or required. This provides a more project-specific level of transparency than a simple monthly count because it allows the public to see which types of entitlement matters are entering the process and which items are moving through staff, Zoning Administrator, Development Advisory Board, Planning Commission or City Council review.

Together, the building and planning reports create a useful public record of permit and entitlement volume, project mix and development activity over time. However, the reports are primarily descriptive activity reports. Ontario’s public materials do not appear to pair them with a service-level dashboard showing average plan-review duration, backlog, number of review cycles, completeness-screening time or percent of reviews completed within a stated turnaround target. As a result, the reports are valuable for understanding workload and development trends, but they do not provide the same level of process- performance transparency as jurisdictions that publish review-time performance against adopted service standards.

Figure B3-6. The City posts monthly Building Permit Activity Reports by year (2019 to present), alongside the Planning division's Monthly Activity Reports.

3. Differentiators and Best-Practice Examples
The practices below stand out in Ontario's program and are recorded as candidate best-practice examples. They describe what Ontario does; they are not recommendations for Ontario, and whether any of them would suit Bakersfield is left to be addressed separately. • Real-time instant permitting. Through a 2025 Symbium partnership, Ontario issues instantaneous solar plan-review approvals and streamlined permits for residential solar, energy storage under 38.4 kW, and detached single-family re-roofs, an instant path broader than solar alone. • Fully electronic submittal and resubmittal. Plans are submitted and resubmitted through Accela Citizen Portal Access, supported by a published Electronic Plan Submittal Guide and Citizen Portal Access User Guide.
• Standardized correction lists. The City posts residential and non-residential plan-check correction lists so applicants can see common correction items before they submit.

• Published activity reporting. Monthly Building Permit Activity Reports (since 2019) and Planning Monthly Activity Reports give a recurring public view of permit and entitlement volumes. • Single multi-department portal. One Accela Citizen Access system spans Building, Engineering, Planning, and Fire, with address search and City maps and GIS built in. • Appointment-based counter service. A Book an Appointment scheduler structures in-person service at the Building counter.

In short, Ontario's strongest public-facing features are its Symbium automated permit path, electronic submittal/resubmittal, standardized correction lists, and activity reports that show workload and project mix. Its main public-information gap is the absence of a day-based standard plan-review target or review- time performance metric.

Sources2
City of Ontario (official)
– Community Development, Building division. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community- development/building
– Building Permits and Plans (status portal; plan-check correction lists; standard plans). https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/building/building-permits-and- plans
– Building Applications & Resources (Electronic Plan Submittal Guide; Citizen Portal Access User Guide). https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/building/building- applications-and-forms
– Apply for Residential Reroof and Solar Permits (Symbium real-time permitting). https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/building/apply-residential- reroof-and-solar-permits
– Building Permit FAQs (plan-check expiration; over-the-counter changes; resubmittals). https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/building/general- requirements/building-permit-faqs
– Building Permit Activity Reports (monthly, 2019–present). https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/building/building-permit- activity-reports
– Planning division and Monthly Activity Reports.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning – Accela Citizen Access (ACA) permit portal. https://aca-prod.accela.com/ONT/ Project and reference sources
– California Department of Finance, Report E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2026 (released May 1, 2026), via the project peer-city screening workbook.
– Cornerstone peer-city screening workbook, Capacity (Staffing) tab (building and plan-check core FTE, FY2024-25, from the City's Community Development personnel classification detail).

2 City webpages and documents were accessed June 23, 2026.

Appendix B.4- Santa Clarita
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA — PEER CITY PROFILE
Santa Clarita, a Los Angeles County city close to the City of Bakersfield in scale and in budget per resident, runs permitting through a One-Stop Permit Center under Public Works Building & Safety, on the Accela-based eService system for electronic plan submittal. It publishes an expedited plan-review program, free for solar and EV-charging projects, issues Symbium instant permits for common residential work, and reviews small projects over the counter within the same visit.

1. SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

ONLINE PORTAL
eService (Accela)
Electronically submit development
plans and documents, pay fees,
schedule inspections, track status,
and print the final record; plus a
“Sammy” virtual-assistant
chatbot.

EXPEDITED REVIEW
Expedited Plan Review
Projects over $100,000 may be
expedited to one-half the
standard turnaround for a 50%
fee; solar-energy and EV-charging
systems are expedited at no
additional cost.

INSTANT PERMITS
Symbium
Instant permits for listed
residential MEP, rooftop PV, and
energy-storage work.

ONE-STOP CENTER
Permit Center
A single counter at City Hall for
building & safety, engineering,
and planning, with same-visit
over-the-counter review for small
projects.

2. PROCESS AT A GLANCE
Process dimension In Santa Clarita
Online systems Accela-based eService, submit plans and documents, pay fees, schedule inspections, track status, print final record (24/7); “Sammy” chatbot assistant.

Applicant navigation One-Stop Permit Center at City Hall for building & safety, engineering, and planning; detailed construction-plan requirements with example plans by project type.

Completeness / clock start The City publishes plan-preparation requirements and warns that incomplete, inaccurate, or non-compliant plans can delay permitting and trigger additional plan- review fees; it does not publish a separate completeness-screening or clock-start standard. Agency clearances are required before permit issuance.

Service standards No standard turnaround target is published in days; the expedited program is defined as one-half the current turnaround, and solar/EV are expedited free of charge.

Performance data Building & Safety publishes annual activity highlights, 5,260 permits issued and 31,182 inspections on $488 million of construction work in 2025.

Instant / expedited Symbium instant permits cover listed residential MEP, rooftop PV, and energy-storage work; over-the-counter review applies to smaller projects requiring 30 minutes or less, during morning counter hours.

3. NOTABLE PRACTICES (CANDIDATE BEST PRACTICES)

EXPEDITED REVIEW, FREE FOR SOLAR & EV
Projects over $100,000 may be expedited to
one-half the standard turnaround for a 50%
fee, and solar-energy and electric-vehicle-
charging systems are expedited at no
additional cost.

SYMBIUM INSTANT PERMITS
Instant permits for listed residential MEP,
rooftop PV, and energy-storage work.

OVER-THE-COUNTER SAME-VISIT REVIEW
Projects needing 30 minutes or less of plan
review are reviewed over the counter during
morning counter hours, patio covers, small
remodels, pools and spas, signs, fences, and
retaining walls.

Overview
Santa Clarita is a Los Angeles County city with an estimated population of approximately 232,8831.

Among the peer set it is one of the closer matches to the City of Bakersfield on fiscal scale, its budget per resident is in a similar range, and it has grown roughly 9 percent over the last decade. Distinctively, it administers permitting through its Public Works Department's Building & Safety Division rather than a community-development department, operating a One-Stop Permit Center alongside Planning and Engineering.

1. Approach
This review examined Santa Clarita's permitting process as a developer, applicant, or design professional would encounter it, entirely through the City's public website and publicly posted materials, the Building & Safety, Permit Center, Plan Review Information, and Forms, Applications and Fees pages, the Economic Development Division's permits-and-development page, the eService (Accela) portal, and the Instant Online Permits materials, mirroring the desktop method used across the study.

Santa Clarita administers permitting through the Building & Safety Division of its Public Works Department, which states that its “team of professional engineers, inspectors, and friendly support staff is dedicated to providing the highest level of plan review and inspection services.” Building & Safety, Planning, and Engineering share the One-Stop Permit Center on the first floor of City Hall (Suite 140) and the Accela-based eService system.

2. Current-State Characterization
Intake and application procedures
Applicants can apply online through the City's eService portal or in person at the One-Stop Permit Center at City Hall. For common residential work, the City offers Instant Online Permits (residential only) through a Symbium-powered platform, covering rooftop solar or battery storage, service-panel upgrades or replacement, water-heater replacement, water repipe, and water-service replacement, and provides an Online Permit Guide for residential construction. Commercial projects are directed to the Permit Center. Standardized paper application forms (a Permit Application and separate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing information forms, plus a combination application) are also available for counter submittal.

1 Estimates-E1 | California Department of Finance

Figure B4-1. Santa Clarita's Permit Center page offers an online permit application, Symbium-powered instant residential permits, and an Online Permit Guide for residential construction projects.

Visibility to applicants
Through eService, applicants can track the status of an application, view information, schedule inspections, and print the final record. The Plan Review Information page sets out detailed construction- plan requirements by project type, from residential site plans, ADUs, additions, and decks to commercial tenant improvements, rooftop equipment, demolition, and signs, many with downloadable example plans, so applicants can see what a complete submittal looks like before they apply. The City also publishes Information Bulletins and Standard Details and a library of training and informational videos.

Figure B4-2. The Plan Review Information page lists construction-plan requirements by project type, many with example plans, and explains the over-the-counter and expedited review options.

Completeness checks and review start
Construction plans must be prepared by a qualified person and, for most project types, by a California- licensed architect or engineer; the City publishes the plan requirements each project type must meet.

Plans are submitted with a plan-check fee, and a distinctive feature of Santa Clarita's process is its agency- clearance step: the City states that clearances from all applicable outside agencies must be obtained before Building & Safety can issue a building permit, and it publishes agency referral lists to guide applicants. The City's public materials do not state a separate completeness-screening service standard distinct from plan review itself.

Plan review routing
Building & Safety staff review construction plans for compliance with state building codes and local regulations. The One-Stop Permit Center is the public service point for building & safety, engineering, and planning needs, while eService supports electronic submittal of development-related plans and documents for plan and project review. Outside agency clearances are handled as a separate applicant responsibility before permit issuance.

Figure B4-3. The City frames a One-Stop Permit Center and an Accela-based eService system that lets applicants submit development plans and documents electronically, 24 hours a day.

Resubmittal management
The City's public materials do not publish a separate resubmittal turnaround target. Resubmittals are handled through the same eService system used for the initial submittal, and the published plan requirements and Information Bulletins give applicants a standing reference for the items most likely to drive corrections. For small projects, the over-the-counter path effectively collapses the resubmittal cycle:
changes that require no more than 30 minutes of review can be resolved at the counter the same visit.

Applicant communications
Santa Clarita's applicant-facing channels include the One-Stop Permit Center, eService, permit inquiry email, Resident Service Center, and inspection hotline. The posted counter hours are service-specific:
over-the-counter plan review and walk-ins are limited to morning hours, Monday through Friday, while public records and permit issuance have broader posted hours. The Building & Safety page also includes an AI chatbot widget, but the public text does not describe the scope of questions it handles.

Technology tools
Santa Clarita's core platform is the Accela-based eService system, which the City describes as allowing businesses to electronically submit development-related plans and documents for plan and project review 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and to pay fees, schedule inspections, track status, and print the final record. It is complemented by the Symbium instant-permitting platform for common residential work, the “Sammy” virtual-assistant chatbot, and a published library of training and informational videos. Together these give the City a largely online front end for both transactions and applicant guidance.

Figure B4-4. The City's Accela-based eService system lets applicants submit items for Building & Safety, Planning, and Environmental Services online, 24 hours a day.

Staffing approach
The peer-screening data records approximately 28.5 building and plan-check FTE for FY24-25, about

1.22 staff per 10,000 residents, in a primarily in-house model. This figure includes roughly six in-house plan-review engineers; a strictly itemized plan-check core would be closer to 22–25, and the screening workbook attaches a lower data-confidence flag to the number. The City's adopted fee schedule confirms that plan check and inspection can also be performed by outside contract services: its hourly plan-check fee (Ref. S-001A) is billed at the City's fully allocated hourly rate “or the cost to the City if contract services are used,” deferred-submittal review is billed at the hourly rate “plus any outside costs,” and construction- inspection fees likewise fall back to “actual costs if contract services are used.” Because the City can augment its in-house staff with contract plan-review capacity in this way, the in-house FTE understates the City's effective plan-review capacity and should be read as a conservative floor rather than a full- capacity count.

Published service standards and timelines
Santa Clarita's most fully developed published standard is its expedited program rather than a routine turnaround target. The City states that plan-review services for projects over $100,000 in valuation may be expedited; that the fee for expedited plan review is an additional 50 percent of the plan-review fee; and that the turnaround for expedited review is “one half of the current plan review turn-around time for projects of similar scope and complexity.” Notably, solar-energy systems and electric-vehicle-charging systems are expedited at no additional cost. Alongside this, the City offers over-the-counter review for projects needing 30 minutes or less, during morning counter hours. What the City does not publish is a standard plan-review turnaround expressed in days for routine projects; the expedited target is defined relative to that unstated standard. This is recorded as a descriptive observation about what the City publishes, not an assessment of its actual review speed.

Figure B4-5. Santa Clarita's published Expedited Plan Review Services: half the standard turnaround for a 50% fee on projects over $100,000, with solar and EV-charging systems expedited at no additional cost.

Performance transparency
Santa Clarita publishes annual activity highlights rather than a service-level dashboard. Its Building & Safety page reports that in 2025 the division issued 5,260 permits and performed 31,182 building inspections for construction work totaling $488 million in the City. These figures give the public a recurring sense of permit and inspection volume and construction value, though the City's public materials do not pair them with an on-time-performance metric measured against a published turnaround target.

Figure B4-6. The Building & Safety page publishes annual activity highlights, 5,260 permits issued and 31,182 inspections on $488 million of construction work in 2025.

3. Differentiators and Best-Practice Examples
The practices below stand out in Santa Clarita's program and are recorded as candidate best-practice examples.
• Expedited plan review, free for solar and EV. Projects over $100,000 may be expedited to one-half the standard turnaround for a 50% fee, and solar-energy and electric-vehicle-charging systems are expedited at no additional cost.
• Symbium instant permits. Common residential work, rooftop solar or battery storage, service-panel upgrades, water-heater replacement, repipe, and water-service replacement, is permitted instantly online.
• Over-the-counter review for small projects. Smaller projects requiring 30 minutes or less of plan review can typically be reviewed at the counter during morning hours, subject to project scope, complexity, and existing conditions.
• 24/7 electronic submittal and a one-stop center. The Accela-based eService system accepts development plans and documents around the clock, routed through a One-Stop Permit Center spanning building & safety, engineering, and planning.
• Detailed published plan requirements with example plans. The City publishes construction-plan requirements by project type, many with downloadable example plans, so applicants can prepare complete submittals.
• Virtual-assistant chatbot. A “Sammy” chatbot answers applicant questions directly on the Building & Safety pages.

In short, Santa Clarita's distinguishing strengths are its expedited plan-review program, free for solar and EV-charging projects, its Symbium instant permits, and its over-the-counter same-visit review, supported by 24/7 electronic submittal through a one-stop center. Notably, the City does not publish a standard day-based plan-review turnaround target for routine projects.

Sources2
City of Santa Clarita (official)
– Building & Safety Division (Public Works), home page and 2025 activity highlights. https://santaclarita.gov/building-safety/
– Permit Center (online permit application; Instant Online Permits via Symbium; Online Permit Guide). https://santaclarita.gov/building-safety/permit-center/ – Plan Review Information (construction-plan requirements; over-the-counter review; Expedited Plan Review Services; agency clearances). https://santaclarita.gov/building-safety/plan-review- information/
– Forms, Applications, and Fees (permit application forms; eService link). https://santaclarita.gov/building-safety/forms-applications/ – Building & Safety Fee Schedule, adopted FY2024-25 (plan-check and inspection fees billed at the City's cost when contract services are used; Ref. S-001A, S-001H, S-002; expedited plan-check surcharge). https://santaclarita.gov/finance/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2025/01/Fee-Schedule- 2024-2025-Adopted-06.25.24.pdf
– Economic Development Division, Plan Review and Building Permits (One-Stop Permit Center; eService 24/7). https://econdev.santaclarita.gov/permits-and-development/ – eService permit portal (Accela). https://aca-prod.accela.com/SANTACLARITA/ – Instant Online ePermits (Development Center). https://www.secure-santa-clarita.com/epermits/ Project and reference sources
– California Department of Finance, Report E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2026 (released May 1, 2026), via the project peer-city screening workbook.
– Cornerstone peer-city screening workbook, Capacity (Staffing) tab (building and plan-check FTE, FY2024-25; in-house with consultant overflow; includes in-house plan-review engineers).

2 City webpages and documents were accessed June 23, 2026.

Appendix B.5 - Stockton
CITY OF STOCKTON — PEER CITY PROFILE
Stockton, a San Joaquin Valley city of comparable scale to the study subject, runs permitting through a consolidated Community Development Department and one-stop Permit Center, transacting on the Accela Citizen Access portal.

It publishes projected plan-review cycle times keyed to project type and valuation, offers SolarAPP+ auto-issued solar permits, and runs a citywide performance-analytics function with a public open-data portal.

1. SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

ONLINE PORTAL
Accela Citizen Access
E-permit portal to apply for
permits, pay fees, research status,
schedule inspections, and submit
plans electronically; a CDD Virtual
Assistant estimates permit needs
and checks zoning before
applying.

PUBLISHED STANDARDS
Projected Cycle Times
The City publishes projected plan-
review cycle times in working days
for first review and resubmittals,
keyed to project type and
valuation.

INSTANT / EXPEDITED
SolarAPP+ & OTC Permits
SolarAPP+ auto-issues eligible
residential solar permits; over-the-
counter electronic permits cover
common trades, electrical, HVAC,
plumbing, reroof, and water
heaters.

TRANSPARENCY
OPDA / StocktonStat
The Office of Performance & Data
Analytics runs the StocktonStat
program and a public open-data
portal that publishes permit
datasets.

2. PROCESS AT A GLANCE
Process dimension In Stockton
Online systems Accela Citizen Access (ACA) portal for fee payment, permit status, some permit applications, and inspections; Electronic Plan Check for plan review after initial submittal; CDD Virtual Assistant and Easy Inspection Scheduler.

Applicant navigation One-stop Permit Center for building, planning, transportation, encroachment permits, and fire inspections; CDD Virtual Assistant for pre-application zoning and cost estimates.

Completeness / clock start Planning applications receive a completeness review before referral; building plan-check fees are due at submittal, and initial plan-check sets are submitted in person or by email rather than through the portal.

Service standards Published projected cycle times (working days) by project type, e.g., new single-family 15 / commercial new construction 20 for first review, with shorter resubmittal targets.

Performance data Office of Performance & Data Analytics (StocktonStat) and a public open-data portal that publishes permit datasets such as issued permits.

Instant / expedited SolarAPP+ auto-issued residential solar permits; over-the-counter electronic permits for electrical, HVAC, plumbing, reroof, and water heaters.

3. NOTABLE PRACTICES (CANDIDATE BEST PRACTICES)

PUBLISHED CYCLE TIMES BY PROJECT TYPE
Stockton publishes projected plan-review
timelines in working days, separately for first
review and resubmittals, keyed to project type
and valuation, so applicants see an expected
timeline at intake.

PERFORMANCE-ANALYTICS CULTURE
The Office of Performance & Data Analytics
runs StocktonStat, an Innovation Lab, and an
open-data portal with issued-permit records;
this supports activity review but not on-time
review tracking.

PRE-APPLICATION VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
A Community Development Virtual Assistant
lets applicants estimate permit needs and
costs and check a property's zoning before
they apply.

Overview
Stockton is a San Joaquin Valley city with an estimated population of approximately 322,4361, placing it close to the study subject in scale and within the same inland-valley operating context. It permits under a consolidated Community Development Department whose Building & Life Safety, Development Engineering, and Planning workgroups share a one-stop Permit Center and use Accela Citizen Access (ACA) portal for fee payment, permit status, inspections, and some permit applications. Building plan review is electronic, but initial plan-check submittals are made in person or by email rather than through the portal.

This profile records Stockton's practices descriptively and flags the ones that stand out as candidate best- practice examples. The side-by-side comparison across the peer cities is compiled separately.

1. Approach
This review examined Stockton's permitting process as a developer, applicant, or design professional would encounter it, entirely through the City's public website and publicly posted materials, the Building & Life Safety, Plan Review, Online Permitting, Permit Center, and Planning pages, the published Projected Building Permit Plan Review Timelines and Electronic Plan Check materials, the Accela Citizen Access portal, and the City's Office of Performance & Data Analytics and open-data portal, mirroring the desktop method used across the study. Where Stockton's public materials did not disclose a given practice, that limitation is noted rather than inferred.

Stockton organizes permitting under the Community Development Department (CDD), which the City describes as the hub of all permitting activity for development and the controlling agency for the issuance of building permits. The Building & Life Safety Division handles building permits, plan review, and inspections; the Planning Division handles entitlements; and both transact through the one-stop Permit Center at 501 W. Weber Avenue and the portal.

2. Current-State Characterization
Intake and application procedures
Applicants apply for permits, pay fees, research permit status, schedule inspections, and submit plans electronically through the ACA portal, which the City describes as available “at any time and from anywhere.” In person, the Permit Center operates as a one-stop shop for building, planning, transportation, encroachment permits, and fire inspections. A Community Development Virtual Assistant lets applicants estimate permit needs and costs and check a property's zoning before they apply. Notably, while many transactions are online, the City states that initial plan-check submittals cannot be made through the online portal and must be made in person or by email, with the subsequent review handled through Electronic Plan Check.

1 Estimates-E1 | California Department of Finance

Figure B5-1. Stockton's Online Permitting page routes applicants to the Community Development Virtual Assistant and the Accela Citizen Access portal, where they can apply, pay, check status, schedule inspections, and submit plans electronically.

Visibility to applicants
Through the ACA portal, applicants can research permit status, pay fees, and schedule inspections online, and the portal includes a customer-satisfaction survey. Before applying, the CDD Virtual Assistant gives applicants a self-service estimate of permit needs and costs and a zoning check for a specific address.

For timing expectations, the City publishes its Projected Building Permit Plan Review Timelines, so an applicant can see the expected review duration for their project type at the outset. At the citywide level, the open-data portal publishes permit datasets, giving the public a view of permit activity.

Figure B5-2. The Plan Review page links the City's published “Building Plan Review – Projected Cycle Times” and sets out the plan-examiner review and submittal expectations.

Completeness checks and review start
On the planning side, the City describes an explicit completeness review: after an application is submitted to the Permit Center, staff verify that all required elements are provided before the application is referred to reviewing departments and agencies. On the building side, plan-check fees are charged at submittal and City plan examiners review the submitted set against City regulations and building codes; because initial plan-check submittals are made in person or by email rather than through the portal, intake and fee payment together function as the trigger to begin review. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days expire by limitation.

Plan review routing
Stockton uses Electronic Plan Check (EPC) for building plan review in lieu of traditional paper submittals. The Plan Review page lists typical plan-set components and states that EPC is required for project types needing plan review, including residential, commercial, small projects, and commercial solar. The Permit Center coordinates related building, planning, transportation, encroachment, and fire- inspection functions. For planning entitlements, application materials and staff routing determine which departments, agencies, staff decision-makers, Planning Commission, or City Council actions apply.

Figure B5-3. The Permit Center is described as a one-stop shop spanning building, planning, transportation, encroachment permits, and fire inspections.

Resubmittal management
Resubmittals and rechecks run through the EPC portal. Stockton publishes separate, shorter cycle- time targets for resubmittals than for first review, for example, ten working days for residential single- family resubmittals against fifteen for first review, and fifteen working days for most commercial resubmittals against twenty for first review. Revisions and deferred submittals carry their own published target of ten working days. Publishing the resubmittal targets alongside the first-review targets gives applicants an expected timeline for each cycle, not just the initial one.

Applicant communications
Stockton's applicant-facing channels center on the one-stop Permit Center counter, the ACA portal, and a dedicated plan-check email address for submittals and questions. The portal also surfaces a CDD Virtual Assistant for pre-application questions, an Easy Inspection Scheduler for booking inspections, and a customer-satisfaction survey, indicating a structured feedback mechanism tied to the service experience.

Technology tools
Stockton's applicant technology stack combines ACA, EPC, the Community Development Virtual Assistant, the Easy Inspection Scheduler, and SolarAPP+. Accela supports fee payment, status research, inspection scheduling, and some permit applications; EPC supports plan review after initial submittal; and the Virtual Assistant provides pre-application zoning and permit-cost guidance. For solar, the City uses SolarAPP+ to auto-issue permits for eligible residential rooftop retrofit photovoltaic systems. Over-the- counter electronic permits are also available for common trade work, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing, reroofing, post-fire repairs, photovoltaic, and water heaters. .

Figure B5-4. Accela Citizen Access is Stockton's online front end, apply for a permit, pay fees, schedule inspections, search permits, and reach the CDD Virtual Assistant and a customer-satisfaction survey.

Figure B5-5. Stockton's Automated Solar Permitting page describes SolarAPP+, which auto-issues permits for eligible residential rooftop photovoltaic systems.

Staffing approach
The peer-screening data records approximately 25 building and plan-check core FTE for FY24-25, about 0.78 staff per 10,000 residents, in an in-house model. This figure reflects the building and plan- check core boundary, permit technicians, plan checkers and examiners, building inspectors, and building supervision, and excludes planning, engineering, fire, and non-building administration, so it is a deliberately narrow measure of the building-permit function rather than the full development-services headcount.

Published service standards and timelines
Stockton's clearest published service standard is its Projected Building Permit Plan Review Timelines, which list working-day targets for first reviews and resubmittals by project type and valuation. Residential examples include 20 working days for first review and 15 for resubmittals for new multifamily, 15 and 10 for new single-family, 12 and 10 for other residential work over $30,000, and 10 and 8 for other residential work under $30,000. Commercial examples include 20 and 15 working days for new construction, additions, and other commercial work over $500,000, and 15 and 10 for commercial work under $500,000.

Revisions and deferred submittals carry a 10-working-day target. The City notes that these are projected times subject to staffing, workload, and project complexity. Stockton's public materials do not describe a separate formal expedited-review program; faster paths are limited to SolarAPP+ and over-the-counter electronic permits for eligible routine work.

Figure B5-6. Stockton publishes projected building plan-review cycle times in working days, separately for first review and resubmittals, keyed to project type and valuation (BLDG-0037).

Performance transparency
Stockton supports permitting with a citywide performance-management function. The Office of Performance & Data Analytics (OPDA), established in 2020 under the City Manager, runs the StocktonStat

performance program, an Innovation Lab focused on streamlining municipal processes, and a public open- data portal that publishes datasets and dashboards. On the development side, the public portal publishes an “Issued Permits” dataset and a Development data story, and a published case study describes the City building an automated pipeline that monitors plan-review cycle times, measured in both calendar and working days, against the kind of per-project-type targets the City publishes. The combination of published per-type cycle times and a citywide analytics function oriented to measuring performance against targets is what stands out here.

Figure B5-7. The Office of Performance & Data Analytics runs the StocktonStat program, an Innovation Lab, and a public open-data portal.

Figure B5-8. The public open-data portal's Development story publishes permit data, including issued permits mapped by City Council district.

3. Differentiators and Best-Practice Examples
The practices below stand out in Stockton's program and are recorded as candidate best-practice examples.
• Published cycle times by project type. Stockton publishes projected plan-review timelines in working days, separately for first review and resubmittals, keyed to project type and valuation, so applicants see an expected timeline at intake for each review cycle. • Citywide performance-analytics function. The Office of Performance & Data Analytics runs the StocktonStat program, an Innovation Lab, and a public open-data portal that publishes permit datasets such as issued permits.
• Pre-application virtual assistant. A Community Development Virtual Assistant lets applicants estimate permit needs and costs and check a property's zoning before they apply. • Instant and over-the-counter paths. SolarAPP+ auto-issues eligible residential solar permits, and over-the-counter electronic permits are available for electrical, HVAC, plumbing, reroof, and water- heater work.
• One-stop Permit Center. A single Permit Center spans building, planning, transportation, encroachment permits, and fire inspections, with the Community Development Department positioned as the hub of development permitting.
• Electronic Plan Check. Plan review and rechecks run through Electronic Plan Check in lieu of paper submittals.

In short, Stockton's distinguishing strengths are its published plan-review cycle times, one-stop Permit Center, pre-application virtual assistant, SolarAPP+ pathway, and citywide open-data infrastructure. The

main nuance is that the plan-review workflow is electronic, but initial plan-check submittals are not made through the online portal.

Sources2
City of Stockton (official)
– Community Development Department / Permit Center.
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/permit_center/
– Building & Life Safety, Online Permitting.
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/building___life_safety/online_permitting.php – Building & Life Safety, Plan Review.
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/building___life_safety/plan_review.php – Projected Building Permit Plan Review Timelines (BLDG-0037, revised May 5, 2026). https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/building___life_safety/ – Automated Solar Permitting (SolarAPP+).
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/building___life_safety/automated_solar_permitting.php – Planning Division. https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/planning___engineering/planning.php – Accela Citizen Access (ACA) e-permit portal. https://aca-prod.accela.com/STOCKTON/ – Office of Performance & Data Analytics (StocktonStat; open data portal). https://www.stocktonca.gov/government/city_manager/office_of_performance___data_analytics. php
– Stockton Open Data portal, Development story and Issued Permits dataset. https://data.stocktonca.gov/
Project and reference sources
– California Department of Finance, Report E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2026 (released May 1, 2026), via the project peer-city screening workbook.
– Cornerstone peer-city screening workbook, Capacity (Staffing) tab (building and plan-check core FTE, FY2024-25).
– Accela, “How Stockton, California, turned permit data into operational clarity” (vendor case study describing the City's permit-performance data pipeline).

2 City webpages and documents were accessed June 23, 2026.

Appendix C – Applicant Interview Discussion Framework

City of Bakersfield
Permitting Process Benchmark Study June 2026; P#239-20-00 Applicant Experience
Stakeholder
Nature of Interactions with City
Other Agency Interaction
Observations:

Clarity of Requirements
Predictability of Timelines
Correction Cycles
Interdepartmental Coordination
Portal Usability
Overall Customer Experience
Contrast with Other Jurisdictions
Examples of Smooth Processing
Examples of Lengthy / Costly Delays

Appendix D – Highlights of Applicant Feedback

Interviews were conducted in June 2026 with the expectation of anonymity. These were a combination of in-person and virtual interviews, most of which were conducted by Cornerstone Managing Partner, Christine Halley. Cornerstone sought to speak with a variety of stakeholders to provide a broad- based perspective on the applicants’ experience when seeking City planning and/or building permits.

Stakeholder A – Practitioner with decades of experience in land development across many California jurisdictions recalls changing permit processes over the years. Observed that the City’s “one stop shop” for permitting has actually slowed things down. The lack of availability of supervisors to make decisions is a factor. It is not unusual for plan checkers to propose something that goes beyond City development standards, and it can take months to reach a supervisor to reverse course.

Mid-level staff have little authority such that any snags encountered need to go to the handful of authorized supervisors. And arranging meetings with those few takes months.

Planning decisions such as General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes used to be done with concept level information, not unlike what is reflected in, say, a citywide General Plan Update. City posture now is to get way too specific about a hypothetical proposed use during entitlement phase so that a detailed environmental assessment may be conducted. More appropriate to hold such project specific scrutiny until later in the process. Say, when applicant brings in building plans.

Residential zoning allows for a maximum density of homes and limits usage to that established standard. Recalls a project involving a less dense residential usage for which staff initially insisted on handling as a GPA/ZC. It took a year to get an audience with a supervisor to agree that was the case.

Stakeholder A Recommendations:
 Give more authority to mid-level staff to avoid supervisors as boƩlenecks;  “No net loss” philosophy for residenƟal units is really slowing things down, necessitaƟng coincidental hearing dates for unrelated projects;  A good measure of common sense and pracƟƟoner confidence would be welcome; and
 Need a beƩer method to get an audience with decision-makers.

Stakeholder B – Practitioner with decades of experience in design of on- and off-site improvements across multiple California jurisdictions. Primary observation about routing design submittals through the City of Bakersfield is that plan checkers are apparently following a checklist but are not discerning the scope of the project itself. An example is calling for an on-site stormwater detention basin for a site that is being connected to a regional storm drain system. Review timelines are very tough to predict, leaving applicants to choose between costly delays or nagging for attention.

The online portal got a thumbs-up for usability but has a flaw – plans that have no relevance to, say, Parks & Rec Dept must receive their OK when routing among departments. Plans sit there for months without action (presumably because they have nothing to say). Repeated calls and emails go unheeded for more than a month.

When plans undergo 2 nd plan check, they apparently receive no priority and rather “go to the bottom of the pile” and undergo a full re-route. Way more efficient to pick up where things left off.

Some observations about other jurisdictions are that Ridgecrest stands out as notably lacking with no apparent tracking system. Delano is fairly responsive but awkward with regard to planning submittals. Wasco has a good plan review system. Kern County planning cycles are really long.

Can’t help but recall the outliers: A grading plan sat for 60 days for a large processing plant. Waiting 13 months and counting for a decision on a sewer connection for a residential / commercial development.

Stakeholder B Recommendations:
 Allow for a quick submiƩal overview to accompany plans to help orient plan checkers;  Train plan checkers to beƩer equip them to support local development;  Grant resubmiƩals a higher priority in the queue; and  Honor City review Ɵmelines; fix the log jams at specific departments.

Stakeholder C – Practitioner with less than 10 years of experience with in-fill land development. Most project work in Bakersfield and Shafter. Submits grading plans, street improvement plans, utility plans, maps and easement documents. Plan checkers ill-equipped to apply City standards to specific projects (i.e. lack the framework for the project at hand). Even straightforward permit submittals such as wall plans take a lot of hand-holding.

Supervisor’s input needed to make decisions and it takes months to get a meeting scheduled. Then, takes weeks after the meeting to get a decision.

Stakeholder C Recommendations:
 Need beƩer trained plan checkers
Stakeholder D – Land developer with 10+ years of experience with in-fill development. Willing to invest the effort to educate City planning dept staff to see things from the developer perspective. Sees plan checking getting worse as years go by; fail to see that $ millions in private funds are being invested right here in town. Be respectful of that.

Prior to 2020 or so, seemed like Planning Dept staff was stable with little turnover.

Shorter term department heads has resulted in slower decision-making. Especially sees value in a Planning Director that can tackle key decisions and be available.

Seems as though staff lacks history on project dialogue, resulting in a “starting over” mentality. City is requiring repeat / updated technical studies for evaluations that have been long settled.

Experience is that applicants must go to Dept heads to get decisions, owing to lack of experience of mid level staff.

Compares to experience in, say, Lancaster where planning staff is experienced. Comes across as a champion for discretionary private $ investment in the community. Felt like a champion of the opportunity rather than a gatekeeper to find something wrong. A sense of shared excitement.

Stakeholder D Recommendations:
 Train staff and empower them to make decisions;
 Examine reasons behind poor staff retenƟon and address them;  Recognize that permit debates and delays result in one thing – people are delayed moving into their homes;
 2nd plan submiƩal should go back to the original planner for conƟnuity.

Stakeholder E – Practitioner with decades of experience in land development predominantly in the Bakersfield area. Very familiar with City staff and City development standards.

On-line portal has actually slowed things down. Attributes this to the routing process.

Staff turnover has been an issue, noting that the quality of plan check comments has eroded. Plan checkers apparently don’t grasp the overall project. Commenting on picayune matters that are insignificant yet costly to address. Plan checkers apparently failing to understand their role as compared to that of the licensed professional preparing the plans.

Years ago, plan checks reliably completed within ~6 months. Now 9+ months.

Resubmittals are picking up new comments rather than being routed back to original checker for confirmation.

City review tend to “kick the can down the road” rather than making decisions. Too few people confident in making those decisions.

Mentions Shafter as an example of quick and easy plan check.

Stakeholder E Recommendations:
 Train plan checkers to understand their role and to avoid stepping into licensed professional judgment;
 Make substanƟve comments;
 Possible to use AI to compare submiƩals?;

 Reassign staff to roles that tap into their natural talents rather than fulfilling a funcƟon.

Stakeholder F – Architect with decades of experience, primarily within Kern County and nearby jurisdictions. Has ushered hundreds of applications with Bakersfield.

Recalls time when applicant fees were determined within a few hours of in person visit and completeness was determined very quickly and adjusted quickly, if needed. Current process requires 1-2 weeks of time.

Some confusion over which systems to use; doesn’t enjoy switching between ProjectDox and Clariti.

Appreciates the transparency through workflow routing reporting, however, system appears to require an individual to “accept” a plan check prior to their name appearing.

In practice, no staff will accept the task until they are ready to perform the task, meaning the transparency as to who is working on the task is not useful.

Overall process isn’t as problematic to this party as opposed to the system in which the humans behind the screen are operating in. Feels like they simply take longer or appear “more picky” than in historical times creating additional, sometimes inconsistent, plan check periods.

Stakeholder F Recommendations:
 2nd plan submiƩal should go back to the original planer for conƟnuity;  Also welcomed a measure of common sense applied by planners  More experienced and consistent plan checkers
Stakeholder G – Practitioner who routinely submits grading and site plan materials with Bakersfield and Kern County.

Described an overall positive experience in working with the staff and their technical qualities but a fragmented applicant journey and inconsistency of correction comments.

Perceived duplicate correction comments from multiple reviewers and indicated reviewers may not be able to see each other’s comments in real time, likely because they perform in parallel. Staff may not be able to resolve or assist with comments issued by another reviewer, which can create bottlenecks when the assigned reviewer is unavailable or difficult to reach.

Difficulty reaching certain staff by phone or email to clarify comments after receiving vague or non-actionable comments.

Stakeholder G Recommendations:
 Standardize correcƟon-comment language

 Improve applicant support for comment clarificaƟon
 Maintain a centralized, current, and searchable online library of applicable City standards, details, checklists, and design requirements

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Development Review Streamlining Ad Hoc Committee
FROM: Gary Hallen, Assistant City Manager
DATE: March 30, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Meeting Schedule for 2026

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends committee approve the meeting calendar.

BACKGROUND:

As part of the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee there is a need to create a regular calendar of meeting so it is transparent to the public on when this committee meets. The establishment of a regular meeting schedule is a best practice. Below are the proposed dates for the next year of meetings:

April 6 – previously occurred
August 4
September 15
November 17

FISCAL IMPACT:

This action of adopting a meeting schedule, has no impact on the general fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Innovative and Efficient City Government

ATTACHMENTS: