L.A. Planning Director LoGrande Navigating the City's Challenges

Obviously, the city is under tremendous fiscal stress. Because budgets typically reflect priorities, what cuts did you have to make, and what did you fight hard to preserve in the 2011-2012 Planning Department budget?

We fought the hardest to preserve advanced planning. Earlier this year, the city administrative officer had recommended cuts that would have effectively stopped all of our community planning work. We currently have seven community plans under way, and they wanted to take away the funding mid-year. Luckily, due to the leadership of our department and many community advocates-who have been working on these plans with us and were able to get their voices heard in the Council and the Mayor's Office-we avoided those cuts.

We're very fortunate that we weren't cut too drastically. The Council appreciated our heavy work load, the work that we're doing in our communities, and many of the legislative items that have been adopted, like the Bike Plan. They saw a lot of progress from the department and wanted to see that continue.

We did okay. Obviously, we could utilize more funding to do more things that we have in mind for Los Angeles as we continue to grow. We want to do additional work in many of the neighborhoods in the city, but we're definitely happy that the Council appreciates the value of planning. They had an honest dialogue about the importance of funding the department and continuing our core services.

All city departments have lost people or slots. Specifically, what did your department sacrifice when the 2012 budget was approved?

We've lost a lot of the vacant positions that we were hoping to fill. We continue to have to do more with less. As we look at being a more nimble department and doing more with less, we're looking at ways to create more efficiency and to live within our means. I felt that the budget, overall, was pretty positive. We lost a little bit of contract money. In the end, compared to many departments, we felt pretty fortunate that the Council appreciated the value of good planning.

Aren't you in a better position with the department now dependent on fees for 70-75 percent of its budget? Can the city take that fee money away from the department?

Legally, they can't touch that fee money. It cannot be transferred to support other city services. While case filings are down overall in the department, for us the real fight was over the General Fund allocation, which is the last 20-25 percent of the department's budget. We convinced the different policy makers of the value of our long-range planning program-planning for the future of Los Angeles and the preservation of neighborhoods. That was really what the discussions were about, not the fee money.

In a TPR interview last month with Planning Commissioner Michael Woo, he said, "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."

Commissioner Woo makes some great points. We definitely have fewer resources. But that is consistent with other municipalities across the city and across the region. The way we restructured our department allows us to continue to perform our core functions. But we had to cut back in a lot of the areas where we had hoped to do specific plans or some strategic initiatives. We communicated to the community and elected officials the tough choices that had to be made so we could have an honest, transparent process going forward: "What are our priorities for the city of Los Angeles, and how do we continue to provide for those, even in tough budget times?"

The community plan work you mentioned are fee-based, correct? With six or seven (you just released the Hollywood plan) tied up for years and, with many fearing their environmental reports are going to be stale soon, can we expect, despite the meager budget, you to produce those community plans soon?

Yes, definitely. We are looking at having the seven community plans that we've been working on for a number of years come forward to the Planning Commission from now through 2012. That was my commitment to the Mayor. We're going to aggressively pursue completion of those plans. Part of our reorganization of the department was to solidify and have planners that just focus, with a team approach, on accomplishing those plans, making sure that we keep that funding in place to move forward on those plans. We feel confident that we can move forward.

What do you predict for the Hollywood plan? Will it be adopted?

We're currently responding to comments on the environmental impact report. It's going really well. We anticipate that plan going forward to the Planning Commission in the fall. We're going to have many more public workshop sessions between now and then. The information we've been getting back from the community has been very positive. We've done a lot of outreach on the plan, and people are excited about it.

TPR asked Commissioner Woo if "real planning" is currently taking place in the city of L.A., to which he replied: "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." How do you react to Woo's impression?

Commissioner Woo loves to elevate the discussion around planning. I tend to see the glass as half-full. We have done a lot. We recently got the Bike Plan adopted, which is a major element of the General Plan. We're working on the Healthy Communities Strategy as a chapter of our General Plan. From the viewpoint of the commissioners, they see a lot of these come forward for adoption, and many times it doesn't happen as quickly as many of them would like. But there is a lot going on in the department and the city in general that's pushing the envelope with forward thinking plans. That will change that perception that once existed.

Michael Woo appeared to be addressing public and political will, not the department. In a Planning Report's interview with Pasadena Planning Director Vince Bertoni, who used to be with the city of L.A.'s Planning Department, he spoke about a default mindset in L.A. City Hall that views the main purpose of city planning as the speedy approval of developer applications. Is that presently the planning mindset in City Hall?

I don't think so. We have a very progressive mayor who has a lot of energy and a lot of ideas and the political will to see them through. We also have a very forward-thinking council. The chairman of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee, Ed Reyes, challenges us to come up with creative ideas.

We also have some of the best planners leading the department and the city, who want to engage and invest their time into creative ideas to make sure that we grow in a smart, sustainable fashion and preserve the quality of life in Los Angeles, even raising it in many areas.

This is a unique time. The neighborhoods and the city are looking at creative solutions to address not only economic issues but also everyday quality of life issues-access to resources, to good schools, to healthy food, and to affordable transportation alternatives. A lot of people are starting to have that discussion at high levels. It's trickling down into the neighborhoods. And it's coming up from more grassroots organizations than I've seen in the past.

The discussion is taking place. You just have to open your ears to hear it. Whether or not that has completely changed City Hall remains to be seen. But there has been a lot of progress made in the last couple of years.

Elaborate on the citywide development reform effort initiated by the Mayor's Office this year. Some of the low-hanging fruit is being approved even before the adoption of development reform, correct?

What I like about this development reform effort, which is different from many prior efforts, is, one, there was funding behind it to hire a good consultant to give us an honest look at what we're doing in Los Angeles and how that compares to other cities around the region and the nation. The second reason this is a really different effort is that there has been a lot of buy-in from the departments.

We had over 100 people from within our own department participate in developing the strategic plan. It's more than just a shelf document that's going to collect dust. It's a strategic guide to how city agencies can move forward. It looks at the process of how we work on projects. And, it's not only about the projects, it's also about how we get our community plans completed and what needs to be changed in terms of our zoning code for us to continue to be a world-class city. The difference in this effort from what we've seen in the past is that this effort is more of a strategic plan than an audit. This is something that will take on a life of its own and be implemented.

The 2012 budget did not fund development reform except for Building and Safety's automated phone permitting systems. The central question is "How is development reform going to be implemented?" Without budget approval, how will you move this forward?

A lot of it has to do with things within our own department. For example, there are many categorical exceptions under the California Environmental Quality Act that this report has identified that we could utilize in Los Angeles for infill development that we currently aren't utilizing and that would streamline the process.

Another example is that Bud Ovrom and I have moved our staff together into a Citywide Case Management Office. We'll have planners from the Department of Building and Safety as well as the Planning Department working together. I have five people in the Figueroa Towers working side by side with Building and Safety, Bureau of Engineering, and the Department of Water and Power, assisting applicants through the building permit process and the entitlement process, all at a very high level.

These initiatives are going to be something that we look to as a model for creating more efficiency in government. It'll be an example of working together better as departments and not ping-pong applicants around from agency to agency. Rather, we will shepherd them through the process regardless of what department may be the lead on that topic.

A lot of what we're doing in development reform focuses on items that don't necessarily have a high price tag, but are a way to do business differently. We are open to new suggestions. A lot of the ideas came from our staff, from neighborhood groups, and the development community. Our staff worked out the solutions. And now we have the vehicle to implement them.

Web Exclusive

The article that Katharine Young did for The Planning Report about Austin Beutner's development reform effort was really more about "the economy, stupid," and how to get plans through the process and approved to jumpstart growth. That reinforces this concern that it's less about the built environment and more about the economy as the state of mind. Did Austin leave an incorrect impression?

I'm not familiar with the article that you're talking about, but one of the great things that Austin did was develop a private sector mentality in government and try to understand some of the unique challenges that businesses face as they move into Los Angeles. It was all about being consistent, focusing on the customer, and creating predictability. The best way to create that predictability is through having good plans that dictate how we want the development to look, feel, and fit with our communities. One of the things that Austin did was make sure that we continued to work on those plans so that we can help businesses, but do so through the planning process.

In fairness to this debate-not about the planning department-consistency flows from the coordination of the community plans with zoning, environmental rules, and regulations so that you've got predictability of what's expected. We don't have those plans in place. Do you think that an outreach program is a substitute for having community plans that, for the first time in L.A., link with zoning and the environmental requirements?

It would be a huge step to get those plans adopted so that we can actually steer development into the areas that can accommodate it. We have a lot of really good specific plans and overlays that we've worked on for a number of years focusing on transit oriented development, for example, that helps to encourage development in the areas that can handle it and preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods, where there are other concerns and where extra density may not be appropriate. We have a lot of those plans in place, and hopefully the adoption of the seven that we're working on will help even more. We still have a lot of work ahead of us.

The TPR piece on development reform included a quote from Ms. Hartsough, which said "KH Consulting was asked [by the Mayor's Office] to do the process improvement from the point of: ‘a decision's been made to build, how do we improve the process so that buildings that meet the plan can get through the process?' So, we're not re-engineering how [the] planning [department] does community planning." Are there two buckets here? One about development reform getting into the process, and another one for how you get through the process?

There was a shift in direction. After a few of the initial community meetings, especially one Saturday meeting Downtown, it became apparent that there was a thirst and a desire from people for an acknowledgement of the importance of community plans. They felt that development reform by itself didn't set the City in the right direction. We needed to embrace a culture of good planning and a culture of getting community plans updated and adopted. The focus needed to also be on advance planning, not just how we process development applications.

The consultants redirected, working with the community and the departments to identify ways to continue to get those seven community plans that we've been working on for so long adopted. There are some strategic action plans around additional community plans beyond these seven. There was a redirect that took place in the development reform process, which is really healthy: "Hey, we're listening to you; we think this is important too."

When will the development reform plans be taken back to a larger cross-section of L.A. to get buy-in?

A lot of the work has already taken place. There was a presentation before the Planning and Land Use Management committee of the L.A. City Council. We're preparing for a presentation in front of the whole City Council. Last Saturday, our planners were at a congress of neighborhood councils called PlanCheckNC, doing a presentation on the ideas behind the draft of the Strategic Guide for Development Reform. We're having a lot of that discussion, and that's going to continue throughout the summer.

TPR also did an interview with Tom Gilmore, who said, with respect to development reform, "The bigger problem for me is the broader system in place, in which building codes and statutory regulations have become so cumbersome as to stifle any meaningful development." Is that a fair statement?

That's very fair. We have a 1946 zoning code-one of the oldest in the nation. The building code can be a real hindrance to good businesses starting up and staying in Los Angeles. We need to look at the zoning code and the building code to ensure we're not imposing overly burdensome requirements on businesses. For example, if you're changing a use from a bookstore to a cupcake shop and we are requiring numerous discretionary actions for something that most people would embrace, is that the right approach? The entitlement process is in drastic need of being updated. I agree with Tom: a lot of codes and regulations are unnecessary.

Getting back to the Michael Woo interview, he also said, "Sometimes I get the sense that city hall and the developers do not understand that the planning process is supposed to make decisions based on what is best for the city, especially for the long range future benefit of the city, which is not always consistent with the developers original proposal." Is that the concern that you and others have about what's going on today?

That's definitely true. There are very few projects that come in to the department as originally proposed and get adopted the way they were filed. We have the Urban Design Studio, and we finally have Citywide Urban Design Guidelines, to help steer applicants. We always evaluate these requests, whether they are variances or zone changes. Many times the process itself is what turns projects into something that fits within our communities and within our neighborhoods. Many times what is submitted to us and what comes out at the end are drastically different.

You've been on the job a little less than a year. How has your view of the job as the director evolved? What about the job intrigues you, what's different than you expected?

I'm intrigued by how people are willing to think outside the box and be creative. That's been a real high point for me. I've also been excited about how much the community is willing to participate in the planning process. There is a thirst that exists in our communities and in our neighborhood councils to engage and look at the city's future, and how we can help shape that in the Planning Department. As a planner, that really excites me, motivates me, and gets me out of bed every morning.

A year from now, if we do another interview, what will we be talking about that is different?

Hopefully we'll be talking about the department securing funding for transit-oriented development around the city and embracing Measure R and ensuring that we have the right guidelines and the right standards in place to embrace the voter investment in rail. We'll also talk about the adoption of the community plans.

[Ed: The Michael Woo interview can be found in the May 2011 issue of TPR. The Vince Bertoni interview can be found in the April 2011 issue of TPR.]