Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PLUM Committee approves $8.78 million for BuildLA portal; directs 30‑day CAO report on metrics and concurrency
Summary
The Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday approved an $8,782,000 allocation from the Development Services Trust Fund for consultant services to continue BuildLA and ordered a CAO report back within 30 days on evaluation metrics and whether the portal will enable concurrent approvals.
The Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday approved an $8,782,000 allocation from the Development Services Trust Fund to continue consulting work on the BuildLA project, a citywide effort to create a single digital portal to share application data among development services departments.
The committee voted unanimously, 5‑0, to adopt the City Administrative Officer report as amended. The committee added an instruction requiring the CAO to report back within 30 days with the metrics that departments will use to evaluate BuildLA’s success and an assessment of whether the system will enable concurrent — rather than sequential — approvals.
Why it matters: BuildLA is intended to reduce duplicate submission of application materials and shorten approval timelines for housing and other development projects. Committee members stressed that whether the portal shortens approvals depends on process changes inside each department, not only on technology.
CAO staff described the portal’s purpose. Andy Galan of the Office of the City Administrative Officer said, “The BuildLA project is intended to establish a singular portal that would allow customers to submit singular data which would then be shared among development services departments.” Galan told the committee the portal would “reduce redundancy in submitting that information.”
Committee members pressed for detail on outcomes. Councilmember (and committee member) Heather Grama said she wanted specific metrics to determine whether the portal actually reduces approval timelines. Councilmember Paul Lee asked whether the system will resolve interdepartmental disagreements (for example, conflicting driveway locations required by different bureaus) before the applicant receives a final answer.
Galan said departmental representatives were not all present and that some questions — notably whether the portal would change the order of approvals or resolve cross‑department disputes — would be better answered by the Bureau of Engineering and other affected departments. The committee added those requests to the CAO’s 30‑day report back.
Committee chair Bob Blumenfield and others repeatedly said the portal must do more than centralize data; it must be paired with procedural changes to allow simultaneous reviews and clear dispute‑resolution rules. The CAO agreed to return with a report that explains the evaluation metrics each department will track, how the project could enable parallel approvals, and estimated time savings.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved the CAO allocation and the additional instruction requesting the 30‑day report back. The clerk recorded a unanimous 5‑0 vote to approve the CAO report as amended.
Next steps: The CAO will prepare the requested report within 30 days and departments including the Bureau of Engineering will be asked to appear for a briefing before the council hearing on the CAO recommendation.
Sources: Committee meeting transcript; remarks by Andy Galan, Office of the City Administrative Officer.
