Politics Mires City Planners, Audit Says

The Planning Department of Los Angeles has become so politicized that it is failing in its responsibility to provide leadership on development issues affecting the quality of life in the city, according to a bluntly worded management audit obtained by The Times.

“Generally, we found an over-politicized department focused on satisfying the mayor and the City Council, rather than providing professional recommendations,” the city-commissioned audit concluded. “There is no proactive work program or clear setting of priorities within the department. There is a lack of a ‘can-do’ attitude.”

Auditors with San Diego-based Zucker Systems, which conducted the study, said city planners frequently described the department’s mission as follows: “The goal/mission of our division is to do pet projects for the City Council and keep them happy.”

The audit report cites no specific examples of political interference, nor does it name any local officials who have allegedly diverted the agency’s attention from long-range planning. Instead, the report takes broad swipes at a department that it describes as plagued by management problems and “dangerously low morale.”

“Planning in Los Angeles is at a crisis level,” the report concludes. “The city needs to overcome more than a decade of inadequate attention to planning issues.”

The Planning Department is responsible for dealing with some of the most sensitive issues at City Hall, affecting property values, traffic and the aesthetics of the city. It advises the mayorally appointed Planning Commission, the City Council and the mayor on everything from zoning changes to building heights.

Its 200 employees work in cramped, old offices at City Hall that the auditors said illustrate how the agency is viewed within the bureaucracy.

“The poor physical work environment provided by the city for the Planning Department staff is perhaps the most telling of all our analyses in assessing the relative priority placed on this city function and its employees by city leaders,” the auditors said.

Also symptomatic of the department’s failings are the ballot measures and lawsuits that residents say they have been forced to file to govern development in their neighborhoods.

In recent years, homeowner groups have emerged as major players in the city’s development, forging a slow-growth movement that the auditors suggested might have been unnecessary if the Planning Department had been providing leadership and vision.

Two weeks ago, Mayor Tom Bradley sounded themes similar to those in the audit during a rare speech to Planning Department employees. Among other things, Bradley urged them not to be unduly swayed by requests from elected officials who lobby for or against projects in their districts.

Perhaps most important to the agency’s future, according to the report, will be the selection of a new director who is “forceful, politically savvy” and “can play hardball and say no” to the city’s elected officials.

For the last six months, the department has been headed by Acting Director Melanie Fallon. She replaced longtime planning chief Kenneth Topping, who quit amid complaints that he was indecisive.

Around City Hall on Tuesday, officials praised the audit, which cost about $300,000 and was requested more than a year ago by the mayor and City Council.

Fallon, a leading candidate for the department’s top job, called the audit “a good thing” and said, “We need to be introspective.”

Councilman Hal Bernson, chairman of the council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee, said council members often contact planning officials with requests in response to complaints on particular projects from constituents.

The impact, he acknowledged, has been to detour the department from “doing things more important.”

But Bernson said the department’s biggest problem is not political interference, but inefficiency and “a leadership vacuum” under the agency’s last two directors.

“We need to take land use matters that now take three and four years to process and take them down to 12 and 15 months,” he said, noting that the audit blamed the city attorney’s office for long delays in processing ordinances.

Councilman Michael Woo, an urban planner by trade, said he agreed with the management critique but warned that it may be tough to find an independent-minded director for the agency. “Our next director,” he said, “should not come here looking for a lifetime job. They should be bold, make people mad and leave after four or five years.”

Woo said he has heard that the city’s reputation for politically inspired planning may already have scared off several qualified candidates.

Jane Blumenfeld, the mayor’s top planning adviser, called the audit “very impressive.” In the past, she said, “a lot of people have just complained, but no one has come up with good ideas for getting us out of the morass.”

In all, the report recommended 267 reforms, the most expensive of which would be to update the General Plan--a huge and complex document that serves as a blueprint for development in the city.

Although it would cost about $9 million, updating the plan would provide department employees with principles to guide their daily planning decisions and help them resist political pressures, Blumenfeld said.

Additionally, the audit said the City Council must give the department leeway to perform its job. “The council should clearly indicate to the Planning Department that they desire professional, not political, recommendations,” the report said.

As a show of good faith, auditors said, council members should not voice views about planning matters in their districts at the early stages of the process. Instead, they should wait until the matter has reached the Planning Commission level before advancing their own recommendations.

“Involvement by the council staff in individual development applications often takes place at the lowest possible decision-making level,” the report said. “Council opinions are suggested to planners prior to hearings. In selected instances, we observed council staff actually testifying on behalf of applicants and/or neighborhoods before official hearing bodies.”

The audit also said the mayor should help keep the Planning Department focused on larger goals and not on using scant resources to satisfy council members with land use problems in their districts.

“The mayor,” the audit recommended, “should assist the Planning Department by clarifying goals and objectives for planning and be willing to use his influence and veto powers to achieve these planning goals.”

The Planning Commission will hold a special meeting Sept. 6 to discuss the audit and its recommendations.