Report finds slashed site plan review times, with further improvements on tap

An analysis of the city’s ongoing work to improve its widely criticized permitting process for building within the city shows substantial improvements in turnaround times for the main types of reviews, with further gains expected as the city moves forward with later phases of its plan. The site plan review process applies to any type of substantial improvement to properties in Austin.

Those findings were included in a recent memo to Mayor Kirk Watson and City Council from Development Services Department Director José G. Roig that detailed the work with outside consultants McKinsey & Company to identify and remedy the problems that lengthened the site plan review process to more than three months in some cases.

The resulting report offered a comprehensive three-phased plan, with the phase one steps already showing significant improvements.

The first phase, which ran from October 2023 to May 2024, saw initial site plan review times drop by 56 percent to an average of 32 days from the more routine 87- to 99-day wait prior to plan implementation. For follow-up review cycles, average turnaround times decreased from 50 days to just under 15 days, nearing the city’s 14-day target.

Process backlogs that had caused delays in critical review stages have been largely eliminated in several departments, leading to near-perfect on-time review rates for certain project categories, such as SMART Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. Feedback with applicants shows a majority of positive experiences, a dramatic change from previous satisfaction rates that were in the low single digits.

Technology infrastructure and workflow coordination remain an issue for the Development Services Department and other city entities involved in the site plan review process. The outdated AMANDA permitting system continues to be a bottleneck, though the city is moving to replace the system and integrate AI tools to streamline the completeness checks and review stages, but this technology upgrade remains in the pipeline.

Key initiatives still in progress for the next year include:

• Process automation to simplify fee calculations, document processing and communications capture within a customer relationship management (CRM) system, slated for 2025.
• Development of a more robust customer-facing application portal, aiming to reduce manual data entry and minimize errors in application submissions.
• An emphasis on interdepartmental conflict resolution, especially for cases requiring multiple departmental reviews. This aims to reduce the need for applicants to navigate independently among departments.

The consulting report highlighted high staff turnover as a significant obstacle to process consistency and said planned incentives and training programs should become a formal part of human resources policy. Other possible steps for consideration by City Council include modifying interpretation standards and clarifying overlapping codes, following through with plans to revise the relevant fee schedules by March 2025, and making moves to improve communication and collaboration across departments.

Phase two of the overhaul will run through the end of this year. By 2025, DSD hopes to have substantially increased transparency, reduced review times and improved service quality for applicants and stakeholders.

The third phase will focus on making recent improvements part of the city’s regular operations by strengthening cross-department teamwork, completing unfinished tech projects and supporting each department’s process updates. City leadership will also be expected to support a continuous improvement culture, with routine team meetings and peer coaching to keep progress steady.

While City Council members have consistently called for improvements to the site plan review process, the receipt of the McKinsey plan last summer was met with some criticism because of the method by which the company was retained and for the short length of their consulting agreement.

Outside analysis from more than a decade ago first identified the chronic wait times and other problems plaguing the city’s planning and building efforts. An internal audit five years ago showed many of those problems were still persistent, and another audit filed last year found there some identified improvements that had not been executed.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.