Fast Tracked Alameda

Working with the City of Alameda should be easy: fast, simple, predictable, and built around you.

‍Over the past couple of years, I've talked to many residents and businesses. Big and small, already here in Alameda or hoping to be, I heard the friction points they've faced when trying to get something done with the city. Below is an evolving philosophy for how the city should interact with businesses and residents. It also draws from my work at the IRS to make it faster, fairer and easier to use.

This is a push to improve systems and processes, not to blame people. As a former government employee, I believe most public servants are trying to do the right thing. It's our systems of doing business that we need to improve.

Here are my C's of a Collaborative City.

‍- Thushan
‍

You shouldn't have to dig through buried planning code, fine print, or complete a step only to discover details at the next step that set you back.

‍When you start, you should be able to know the what, why, how, and when of any permitting, regulation, or stipulation with easy clarity from day one. If a rule affects you, it's written in plain language and transparently visible on city websites and documentation.

Long timelines, unclear delays, and lengthy filings sap viability. Time is money.

‍The city should bias toward action. Set default timelines, make silence-equals-approval the norm where it's safe to, and treat delay as a cost the city bears as well, not just the applicant. Alameda already has a set of express permits. We should expand that list wherever possible, and ensure it covers all types of buildings: residential, rentals, and commercial properties. Faster processes = cheaper operating costs.

An answer shouldn't be: "it depends who you talk to."

Every interaction should be the same for everyone. The same question gets the same answer whether you ask the front counter, email, or call. Common answers should be posted online.

With other Bay Area cities, we should harmonize requirements and processes, enabling more architects and contractors to compete for bids, in turn helping lower building costs. This idea already works here. Alameda uses SolarAPP+ for solar panel permits, which standardizes applications countrywide: leading to permit issuance 2.5 weeks faster than traditional permits, and a 29% drop in projects failing inspections. We should do more proactive over-the-counter permits, like how we allow critical foundation work with pre-approved specs.

Not every decision belongs at City Council. Routine, technical decisions should go to the people with the expertise to make them, not land on a Council agenda by default.

Defer to the Planning Board on planning matters, and empower the Transportation Commission to decide transportation questions rather than passing them up to Council. Both boards are filled with subject-matter appointees. When a proposal is consistent with adopted plans and policies, and the evidence supports it, staff should simply proceed instead of reopening the discussion each time.

Council sets the plans and policies, then enables the city to carry them out. That keeps routine business from being politicized and leaves Council time for the decisions that truly need elected judgment.

You shouldn't have to run around to get everyone on the same page.

‍Departments talk to each other proactively, so you're not the one relaying information between planning, building, economic development, and fire marshals. The city acts as one system, not silos.

You should never have to chase the city for status.

‍The city proactively tells you where things stand, what's next, and why, before you have to ask. We should have dashboards that clearly show current status and average time to action. These dashboards become the same ones department heads and City Council use to measure, drive goals, and standards of service.

Since time is money, we also should explore paths for accelerated review, at an additional cost.

Many other cities offer similar concierge permitting: for an additional fee, extra resources review applications, provide feedback, and keep iteration cycles short. Emeryville already does this: for a 50% surcharge on Building and Fire plan review fees, projects get a guaranteed 3-5 business day turnaround. Rather than putting these projects at the front of the line, the expedited fees should fund additional staffing for applicants willing to pay for faster review.

We should also have at least one plan-checker or engineer on permitting staff – not outsourced – to handle direct questions and tighter turnarounds.

To be clear, this should never slow down standard reviews, and I believe most of our efforts should focus on accelerating the main line path.

—