ERIK <cHoe NNALER.
‘Developer Roundtable — Customer Journey Feedback Themes June 27, 2024 Theme Subtheme Feedback (exact phrase from Roundtable Mtg) Responsiveness Upper management is responsive. This should filter down.
Some staff are very responsive
Some planners don't listen to voicemail or email can take weeks Planners must acknowledge you received communication and tell customer response time Should be transparent on response times from a live person e No progress w/ respect to developer meetings. Is there follow through? Transparency People @ lower level are not responsive. A quick "no" is ok.
No response to email/phone inquiries results in no info for client Response Time - Not timely
Need to have nimble staff responsiveness to discuss time-sensitive projects (pre-app entitlement, Tls); willing to pay for fast-tracked process like STAR Budget allocation for staffing to support faster permit processing No one can get a hold of staff
Process Changes Process Changes are not communicated well/current info not available San Diego does this well, website not updated frequently has outdated info Communicate changes better
How does the City communicate new ordinances to dev't community? Need to have proactive communication during the process for feedback and after approval. Design and budget implications.
Public Information Website is confusing has too much info Interactive Communication Talking + Face is key
Have Meeting to review project comments is positive. Simplifies Process.
Zoom Meetings - Turn on cameras, better interactions
Actual Conversations are better than e-mail conversations - result: big returns Technological communications diminishes human interactions impact on collaboration More collaborative solutions with city staff, person to person better than email Problem Solving Staff needs to be trained on proactive problem solving more management oversight on this.
Staff need to be proactive in trying to resolve issues instead of going over + over again What is the plan to move forward after meeting?
Reluctant to challenge reviewer
Focus on big picture vs minutes/perparel issues
Perfection is not achievable - 90% ok if critical items are addressed Decision making to be less rigid - move consideration to intent (collaboration) Address critical path issues as priority to keep projects moving e Good when PM engages applicant about issues for timely resolution and problem solving; meetings w/ applicant team encouraged for collaborative resolution e Some codes are up to interpretation and there is not process for a meeting to discuss it e There is no problem solving. If Plan checker doesn’t understand, they make you prove it meets code, even if it’s clear on the plans.
e Inspectors saying things that are not correct about "oh why didn’t you do this or that?" Job is to review project as built to plans and code, not question why e Nosense of urgency on some projects i.e. affordable housing | Empowerment e Power for decision making not within department w/ responsibility for decision | e City Staff seem hesitant to make decision on their own - less confidence e Empower decision at lowest possible level with focus on health/life/safety | Timeline e Takes time to respond
| e Timeliness is a problem with some planners
e Review times seem to be ok
e Affordable Housing projects have worked well - can this be modeled as process? e Inspection Scheduling/Timeliness
e Application submittal lead time too long**
e Need flexibility to reschedule submittal appt
e Need certainty for permit cost and timelines*
e Existing approx. review timelines are helpful, but would be better if they're more realistic and definitive
e Timing — Reviewers are not being held accountable to deadlines and responding e Communication for timelines and schedules
e Super important for developers to know where they're at in the schedule e Plan checkers need accountability to respond on time
| e Commit to deadlines
| Questions and e Don't overuse technology. Provide a phone number for quick questions. | Point of Contact e Good to have a SPOC like the dev't facilitation officer e Need more pre-application communication availability
e Planning PM is helpful once they're identified as the single point of contact e Post entitlement: Need SPOC. Better if all comments are received at the same time.
Different reviewers have different communication styles e There is no singular Project Manager to help unify the process. e Entitlements have a PM to talk to. Post-Entitlement, there's no one e Break down projects - big, small, commercial, residential, etc and assign PMs to each e The City needs a Gatekeeper or main point of contact for all comments Customer e Systems are developed for internal use. Customer experience must be considered.
Experience e Remote work creates scheduling challenges. Emphasize customer needs. e Should consider personality conflicts when assigning staff e Should champion the customer + hold them accountable
Department
_| Review and
___| Coordination
Depts need to be on same floor. Needs one-stop shop
Criteria for approval not universal across all staff
Applicant receives comments from each group, but they do not know if they should be expecting any more comments, so they are not sure when to start revisions.
Inner-dept communication needed with application. Sometimes there are conflicting comments.
It's not transparent which departments review the plans Conflicting comments
Offer a meeting with all depts
Permit Center should understand all that’s needed to issue a permit - if something is left off should remind or understand other departments requirements to at least respond to them Other Dept
Reviews Stormwater process is challenging. 2-3 page comment memos every time SS eee There is a lack of a personal relationship to staff in DOT, ESD, Fire Comments Fire + PW provide construction level comments @ entitlement Want city comments in a word doc to facilitate response (or excel) Initial Review: Return to "30-day" comment letters, not the current 45-day.
Less Commentary as review cycles progress - comment related to public works Comments on issues that are out of scope
Plan checker should comment based on how code isn’t met. Not opinions or general statements
They get back comments but with no other input like if additional comments are forthcoming | Application Should provide examples
naccurate vicinity maps
Checklists may not be applicable to scope of project
Application for plan check is really a building permit application, which is confusing if no GC is on board yet
Too much technical info required early in process
Intake Process has been improved + is pretty good now
Need to simplify + streamline process
Stormwater should be conceptional at planning phase
Do rolling submittal for more technical submittals
SB35: It defeats the purpose of the statute when the typical SB35 project takes 6 months to complete (according to staff) _
the project is exempt
File naming convention is complex
Post entitlement: File naming convention is complex; wouldn't be notified of wrong naming convention until months later
Positive experience with hearing prep process. No constructive criticism; understands why hiccups or last-minute things may come up and it’s just part of the public hearing and public review processes.
Why do customers have to inform the city that they have paid the fees? Can this be automated?
Why does permit issuance take so long after all other departments have signed off? Can we automate permit issuance?
Technology City does not use ePlans consistently. There are glitches.
Have to respond to comments twice in ePlans + response letter.
Assigning tasks in ePlans is difficult
Prefers self-help technology rather than asking staff
Microfiche files need to be available online for self-help SJPermits is clunky; interface needs to be more streamlined SJePlans portal is easy to use*
Digital plan process is great; better than paper plans
ProjectDOX - not good to do what it needs to do
ACCELA WORKS
The customer checks sjpermits and sometimes there are review processes in there that have no bearing on the permit and they have to correct it.
The technology makes things worse - email is better
They do not understand why they have to decide who the project needs to be routed to PDox is less collaborative, cumbersome, and clunky than having in-person meetings Not everyone at the City knows how to use PDox correctly, makes it confusing Staff doesn't resolve the issues in the Review Comments when they are resolved on the plans
Is there some way to automate payments without the applicant having to notify the city? | Collaboration Roundtable is good
Developers may be able to assist with external roadblocks - if known Training process - joint training between applicant and reviewers Not sure what the
comment means
Not automated
Complete and schedule notifications