Council directs report on single-portal BuildL system to streamline development approvals

The City Council voted unanimously to approve the chief executive office report on a proposed single-portal development application system known in the meeting as BuildL, with instructions that staff return with an evaluative report within 30 days.

Councilmember Braman opened questioning about how the system would change the way applicants submit development applications. Andy Galán, with the Office of City Administration, told the council the portal’s purpose is to allow applicants to enter one set of data that can be shared across participating departments: “The short answer would be yes — this project aims to create a single portal so customers can submit one application and those data can be used by other departments,” Galán said. He added the portal could reduce redundant submittals and allow departments to review concurrently rather than sequentially.

Councilmembers pressed for measurable metrics and for clarity on how the portal would handle interdepartmental disputes and approval order. Galán said departments will continue to monitor their own timing metrics (for example, time-to-approval) and that the portal project includes a multidepartmental portal plus department-specific system improvements. The council asked staff to return with specifics on the metrics each department will use, whether the portal will enable parallel approvals and how the system will flag and resolve conflicting departmental directions.

Councilmember Braman and others requested a written report addressing five points raised during the discussion, including: the specific metrics to evaluate whether BuildL shortens approval time; whether the portal will enable parallel approvals; how the portal will expose and resolve interdepartmental disagreements; which departments are committed to participating; and the project timeline and completion authority. The council set a 30-day deadline for that report and approved the item with those instructions. The vote was recorded as five in favor.

Council members also voiced concern about past citywide technology projects that were incomplete or unevenly adopted; the CIO and individual departments were identified as necessary participants but were not present to provide technical detail during the meeting. Councilmembers asked that the report describe which departments’ metrics will be used and whether participation will be voluntary or required. The council did not authorize funding changes in the meeting; it only approved the CEO report and asked for the follow-up information.

The council’s instruction is intended to give elected members the information they said they need before moving the program forward at the full council level. The next formal step is the staff report the council requested within 30 days.