Michael Woo Opines on Hollywood Community Plan & Farmers' Market

For our readers who may not be aware, elaborate on your work as Dean of the College of Environmental Design at Cal Poly Pomona. What are your priorities?

We have a very ambitious mission. Our College of Environmental Design is the only university-level interdisciplinary program in Southern California that brings together the allied fields of architecture, urban and regional planning, landscape architecture, and art. We also have a unique interdisciplinary workshop, or lab, called the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, which offers a masters degree and an undergraduate minor relating to sustainability. Even though my professional background is limited to urban planning, I now have the exciting opportunity to work with creative people in all of these different environmental design fields.

Instead of thinking of Pomona as out in the hinterlands, I have started to appreciate Pomona's central location at the fulcrum between the Inland Empire (projected to continue as one of the fastest-growing regions of California) and the San Gabriel Valley, which is being transformed by ethnic changes and the extension of rail transit eastward from Pasadena.

Like other collegiate deans, a big part of my job is fundraising. We just announced a new $3 million bequest gift to our College of Environmental Design from Steve and Marion Dodge, which includes the Schrage House located in the Los Feliz district of Los Angeles, one of the few remaining houses designed by the Raphael Soriano. Soriano was one of the pioneering mid-century modern architects practicing in Los Angeles, so the bequest of the Schrage House is a unique addition to our college's modern architecture assets (along with the Neutra VDL House in Silver Lake), which will be preserved for educational purposes and public tours.

In addition to being the dean at the Cal Poly Pomona College of Environmental Design, you are a city of Los Angeles planning commissioner. What challenges and opportunities does this civic position present?

As a commissioner, I have the opportunity twice a month to shape projects that have a citywide impact. For example, a few weeks ago we had a fascinating hearing on the future of parking in Los Angeles-whether the city ordinances relating to parking are obsolete and whether there needs to be better coordination between our parking policies, our land-use policies, and our transportation policies. This is a long overdue discussion. To the extant to which we can address these big issues, the City Planning Commission is a very exciting place to be.

At the same time, because the city of Los Angeles is facing a continuing budget shortfall, the Planning Department has less in the way of resources, both staffing and money, to address vital concerns about the future of the city and our quality of life, such as how we will accommodate future population growth, how we will produce jobs and promote specific industries, how we will roll back our carbon emissions, and how we will address inequities between haves and have-nots.

Is real planning currently taking place in the city of L.A.in the way that you anticipated a few years ago when the City Planning Commission issued it's well publicized concept paper on the subject?

The short answer would be no! When the City Planning Commission, led by President Jane Usher, first enunciated the "Do Real Planning" principles about five or six years ago, there was quite a bit of fanfare. It succeeded as a vision statement about the future physical development of the city (especially within a process that lacks clear vision) and as a wake-up call, especially to officials and staff in City Hall and to developers who thought that a claim to adherence to the principles could make it easier to get City Planning Commission approval

But the question remained of what should be done with these idealistic, visionary principles about the built environment? Unfortunately, we haven't done as much as we could have to bring those principles into reality-to embed these principles about livability and sustainability into the ordinances, into the community plans, and into the day-to-day work of the planning process.

Some developers have shown an awareness of these principles and have even tried to anticipate questions or opposition (which they might have received from the Planning Commission) by addressing some of these ideas.

A continuing flaw in our planning process is our failure to consistently import these principles into the day-to-day work of the planning process, which sometimes leaves the impression with the public that we're being selective or that we're making choices about when to apply these principles and when not to apply the principles.

Last month, TPR published an interview with new Pasadena Planning Director Vince Bertoni, who was previously number two under Gail Goldberg in Los Angeles. He opined in his interview: "L.A. recently pursued the idea of planning for the city as a whole instead of project by project. But given the tough economic times," and, I would add, the present leadership direction of the department, "this idea has since taken a backseat to getting development projects through the process quickly." Is that a fair assessment?

I generally agree with that statement. In part, Vince Bertoni's observation reflects the default mind-set in City Hall about the state of the economy, which views the main purpose of the planning process as approval of a developer's original application.

In other words, sometimes I get the sense that City Hall and developers do not understand that the planning process is supposed to make decisions based upon what is best for the city, especially for the long-range future benefit of the city, which is not always consistent with a developer's original proposal. But this also reflects the political will: there isn't a strong sense from the elected officials that there should be a strong role for the Planning Department, at least as measured by the allocation of funds in the budget process.

Perhaps this also reflects a broader affliction in the urban planning profession, which has to do with the role of professional planners within the planning process. In the city of Los Angeles, there has been a long tradition of elected officials controlling land-use decision-making authority, sometimes overturning the recommendations of professional staff or intervening at an early stage to influence the options considered by professional staff. This is not typical of the planning process in all large cities, but in Los Angeles, it tends to have the effect of weakening the role of professional planners.

It's possible that elected officials do not understand the planning process and do not appreciate the role that a strong planning director could play when fully engaged in determining the future of major projects. It could also be that elected officials know that a strong planning director could result in outcomes other than what the elected officials think they want. Planning schools, such as Cal Poly Pomona, should do more to create a nationwide pool of strong planning directors who are prepared to address the challenges of future growth in our major cities-and are well-qualified to maneuver around the politics of planning.

In L.A. City Hall, I'm seeing evidence of opportunities for Planning Director Michael LoGrande and the City Planning Commission to wield greater influence on the planning impact of new projects. Take for example Farmers Field, the NFL stadium project proposed by AEG. The planning director and some of his staff have been invited to the early discussions on the Farmers Field project, and last week, the City Planning Commission formed a subcommittee that will provide early input. This is a very welcome initiative because, all too often, the City Planning Commission has been left out of the decision-making process until a late stage when the developers argue that it's too late for them to make major changes.

I am hoping that the City Planning Commission will aggressively argue for making Farmers Field a genuinely transit-oriented project, shifting a significant percentage of the incoming stadium visitors to transit instead of cars. If the project is seriously transit-oriented, there should be a well-thought-out transportation management plan coordinated with a reduction in off-street parking, subsidies for transit use, discounts to Metro and DASH passengers who can demonstrate that they didn't bring a car downtown, and improvements to the pedestrian streetscape between the stadium and the nearby transit station. By setting a good example of economic development that is smart about maximizing the advantage of downtown's transit infrastructure, Farmers Field could be a powerful precedent for other major projects in the city.

The Hollywood Community Plan, updated after 22 years and released for review this month, started under your watch. What is the promise and challenge of doing community planning in Los Angeles, and how does that apply to this particular community plan?

The last Hollywood Community Plan was adopted when I was on the Council, so it's a fascinating experience for me to observe the new version of the Hollywood Community Plan.

Looking back over Hollywood since the 1980s, development patterns have tended to careen between boom and bust, with a desperation for development activity at almost any cost at times of economic downturn, and a full-throated anti-development attitude and a sense that city plans are obsolete and inadequate when the real estate industry is ready for a resurgence.

When I was first elected to the council, there was a development boom going on in the residential areas that generated a strong negative reaction from neighbors who thought that overdevelopment because the old community plan had allowed too much density. Then, after serious recessions and slowdowns in the real estate economy, the totally opposite view argued that the community plan needed to do more to stimulate development. The new Hollywood Community Plan is coming along after another slowdown in the economy and the real estate process, and there is a desire to see the Hollywood Community Plan promote more development and to encourage a better quality of development in Hollywood. When the revised plan finally gets to the Planning Commission, I'm planning to take a very active part in the discussion of what that plan contains.

Why is the Hollywood Plan the first of the community plans to come forward, and why has the Planning Department's new leadership refocused resources away from community planning?

I'm not sure that the retirement of Gail Goldberg was directly attributable to resistance to her efforts to accelerate the community plan revision process. During her tenure and since her departure, the reduced city budget for community plans has slowed down the process, showing that the elected leadership puts a low priority on the community plans. The Hollywood Community Plan was on the list for early completion, in part, because the community plan should be linked to redevelopment efforts. There is some urgency to having an up-to-date community plan so there is a stronger connection between the Planning Department and the CRA/LA.

Turning to the Hollywood's Farmers' Market, which you played a critical role in initiating. Can it continue on it's original site? Can you address the current land use politics, and what the future holds for the market?

The Hollywood Farmers' Market is the largest certified farmers market in the city of Los Angeles, attracting about 10,000 visitors every Sunday morning for the past 20 years. The L.A. Film School, one of the property owners adjacent to the Hollywood Farmers Market, has objected to the market's routine annual renewal of its street closure permit on the grounds that the market obstructs access to one of its driveways on Sunday mornings, and suggesting that the market should consider moving to an alternative location. Councilmember Garcetti has said that he will support the market in its current location, if that is what our nonprofit organization, Sustainable Economic Enterprises of Los Angeles (SEE-LA), wants. Our organization sent a letter to Councilmember Garcetti and to the Board of Public Works on May 16, saying that our first preference is to maintain the current footprint of the Hollywood Farmer's Market exactly where it is, without moving the 60 farmers on Ivar south of Selma to another location. At the request of the city, we did look at some alternatives-closing part of Hollywood Blvd. or closing down part of Vine Street. But the costs involved in moving the 60 farmers to one of these other locations, and the other logistical problems, including traffic barriers, having to hire traffic officers, and things like that, led us to conclude that, without a major public subsidy or a willingness on the part of private companies nearby, such as the L.A. Film School, to subsidize these short-term and long-term costs, the preferable alternative is for us to keep the farmer's market as it is.

In other words, our hope is that, with Councilman Garcetti's support, the Hollywood Farmers Market will be able to stay exactly where it has been thriving for the past 20 years and that our permit to close the four blocks on Ivar Street and Selma Avenue will be renewed by the Board of Public Works.

Web Exclusive

Today, we have an election in L.A. that will probably have less than a 10 percent turnout. There was only 11.5 percent turnout in the last city election. How difficult is it to govern when turnout is so low? Is low voter turnout an explanation for why the elected leadership in many cities, including L.A., focus almost exclusively on a few stakeholder groups such as public employee unions rather than on their general constituency and on livability issues that make living in the city worthwhile?

There is a general sickness in the political process. The low voter turnout is a symptom of the sickness. It's tragic that with such big issues facing the School Board, Community College District, and the city government that the turnout is always so low. Some of this has to do with the way that campaigns are run. For example, the School Board election was characterized primarily by personal attacks, having nothing to do with the real issues or the real choices that the School Board will have to make. It's not surprising that many voters decide that its not important to vote in the election because none of the news media coverage or the direct mail advertising that arrives in people's mailboxes informs the public at all about what the choices are relating to the school district. There is a real sickness in the political process, which then leads to disproportionate influence on the part of those interests that put up the money to pay for campaigns.

Finally, is there today a broad and voting constituency for the planning principles that you're teaching your graduate students and undergraduates at Cal Poly Pomona? Some have said there is no constituency in the city of Los Angeles for real planning. Is that a fair charge?

Bill Boyarsky, the former city-county bureau chief for the L.A. Times wrote an op-ed about that 20 years ago after the departure of another planning director, suggesting that what Los Angeles needed was a "Daryl Gates of planning." In other words, a department head who develops a public constituency for planning in the same way that former Police Chief Gates had created a constituency for the Police Department.

Now, I certainly wouldn't point to Daryl Gates as an example of what a planning director should be, but I do think that there is merit to the idea that there could be a public constituency for planning – and that the planning process cannot be strong where there is no public constituency to support the public benefits of good planning. It's true that there aren't armies of constituents demanding changes in the built environment in Los Angeles, with the exception of what usually I would characterize as NIMBY activists opposing development projects. There could be more of a constituency if the architects, planners, and landscape designers being educated by schools like mine do more than just produce professionals. I'm suggesting that schools such as our College of Environmental Design have a higher calling to educate the public about the reasons why housing, land use, transportation, water, and energy choices make a difference. The public does understand that at some level, but they feel frustrated by not knowing what they can do about it. Coming back to the educational system, and especially institutions of public higher education like Cal Poly Pomona, we have a special mission not just to educate the professionals but also to educate citizens about why making choices about the built environment and the natural environment make a big difference in people's lives.