Streamline Design and Permitting

Thumbtack customerMar 2026

Responsive.

BEVERLY K.Dec 2025

I want to start by saying that I’m genuinely grateful this long process finally ended with my permit being approved. Having a resolution was a relief, and the job captain was responsive toward the very end. Unfortunately, the overall experience with Streamline Design & Permitting was extremely difficult, and I think future clients deserve a clear and factual account of what occurred. For context: I purchased a home where the previous owner had illegally converted a storage space into a studio apartment. I was short-term renting the permitted main portion of my property when I received a code violation for the unpermitted studio. I began the correction process with another permitting facilitation company. When their drafter became unavailable mid-project, I looked for another company to finish the work. I interviewed two companies: Streamline, who promised a submission within a week, and another company that estimated a three-to-four-week timeline. Because I was losing income from the forced shutdown, I chose Streamline based on their assurance of a quick submission. In reality, I didn’t have the kickoff call for a week, and the first submission didn’t go in until about three weeks after hiring them. That slow start ended up foreshadowing the rest of the nine-month process. 1. Lack of transparency throughout The previous company had explained the process clearly, including likely City requirements and realistic timelines. Streamline did not provide the same transparency and presented a more optimistic timeline during the sales process. I repeatedly asked for copies of City comments so I could understand exactly what was happening in each review cycle. I almost never received them directly. The only reason I learned about several major issues was because the original company remained copied on City correspondence and forwarded the comments to me. Without that, I would not have known key details about the status of my own project. This created the impression that I was not receiving full visibility into City feedback or into avoidable errors that were occurring. 2. Incorrect submissions and repeated avoidable mistakes Several errors led to delays and additional rounds of review: • The first submission labeled the space as a JADU, even though I had explained during the kickoff call that my zoning does not allow a JADU and the project needed to be categorized as an ADU. • When the title was corrected from JADU to ADU, the interior sheets throughout the plan set still referenced a JADU. • After I requested a phone call with the City, the reviewers clearly stated that the space must be submitted as a non-habitable owner’s office unless I pursued a full ADU. Despite that explicit direction, the next submission described it as “living space.” I chose the non-habitable path specifically to speed approval, but these errors produced new City comments, more review cycles, and additional cost. When I asked about the “living space” resubmission, I was told the terminology was carried over from another project rather than the mistake being acknowledged. None of these errors were brought to my attention proactively. 3. Invoicing lacked clarity I repeatedly asked for a breakdown of hours because I could not tell what portions were drafting versus administrative coordination. The previous company I worked with separated those categories. Streamline billed everything at drafting rates without itemization, including coordination tasks, follow-ups, and actions I ultimately completed myself. When I asked questions to understand the charges, the responses felt defensive rather than clarifying. 4. Communication tone from leadership When I raised concerns about transparency, invoicing, and delays, the CEO’s response felt dismissive. He stated that I should have hired someone else if I didn’t like the pricing and suggested that questioning hours could result in the project being placed on hold. This was after nine months of delays, errors, and my repeated attempts to provide constructive feedback so we could move forward more efficiently. 5. After the permit was finally approved Despite the difficulties, I reached out again for the next phase of the project (an ADU conversion) because I wanted to give Streamline an opportunity to demonstrate improved communication and workflow—especially since the job captain I had worked with was no longer at the company. I believe people and companies can grow, acknowledge mistakes, and improve; I was hoping this would be the case here. I requested drafting support only—not City submissions—because the lack of transparency in the first phase made me want to manage City communication directly. Instead of a drafting-only scope, I was presented with a large proposal priced as if the project was starting from scratch. When I asked for my CAD files so I could hire another drafter, Streamline requested additional fees. I ultimately hired someone else, who is recreating the plans for less than Streamline quoted for updating the existing files. Summary Streamline has a strong sales presence and confidence, but in my experience the drafting quality was inconsistent, mistakes were not acknowledged, transparency was limited, and communication lacked accountability. The job captain was pleasant and responsive toward the end, but many errors and omissions occurred throughout the process. I’m relieved to have a permit in hand, but getting there was far more stressful and expensive than it needed to be. A final note Streamline’s contract contains a non-disparagement clause. For that reason, everything shared above reflects documented facts: dated emails, City correspondence, the recorded project timeline, and written communication from Streamline. This review is offered to help future homeowners understand what I experienced so they can make an informed decision.