Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick’s just-released report charging the city’s planning department is stuck in a “time warp of past practices, old procedures and outdated technology,” is not going to come as a surprise to any of the developers I know. They’ve been saying the same thing for years. But I figured it was worth taking a look at the report anyway, and here’s the thing: it backs up what most developers know with facts and figures in a way that is actionable. Among the things the report found in its audit, there are 56 vacant positions in the planning department that’s nearly 20 percent of the staff allotted to the department at a time when the workload, judging by the land use applications alone, increased by 32 percent. In 2000, 12 planners staffed the citywide planning function. Now there are four. A unit that functions to simplify zoning codes is not staffed at all. And the department’s budget, $20 million, has remained the same even as the workload has ballooned. Without enough hands on deck, it’s no wonder that the audit found long delays throughout the processing function. Among them, it’s taking an average of 45 days for expedited engineering department review reports up to 101 days for non-expedited reports. The standard is 39 days. Those delays have an adverse effect on all the processing timeframes that follow, again no surprise to developers, but the audit found that those delays were limited. In fact, 79 percent of processing departments said their response time is within the 21-day benchmark. But as developers have long claimed, it takes a very long time for the reviewing departments to notify them of their determinations once made. How long? According to the audit, the average number of days it takes for the letter of determination to be mailed is 47 days to 50 days, not the 30-45-day timeframe standard that’s been set. The report makes a number of recommendations, including increasing staffing levels and reorganizing some departments to expedite processing. But there’s one recommendation I found especially intriguing. Right now, the planning department is organized by application type, so that staff members become knowledgeable with one particular type of application. The audit report recommended that the planning department consider reorganizing so that staff members are organized by community. That way, the report reasons, planners will be able to evaluate how communities will be impacted by planning and land use decisions. Whether the report gathers dust or serves as an impetus for reform still remains to be seen. But there is cause for optimism. As Bud Ovrom, the deputy mayor for housing and economic development told me, the new administration has no reason to get defensive over the criticism contained in the report. Ovrom, who hadn’t yet had a chance to read the report when I spoke with him late last week, said he’s found the audits released by the Controller’s office to be helpful in the past. “The timing is good for us,” Ovrom said. “Because it will give the new planning director a chance to look at it and not be threatened.” At the same time, the city is finally moving forward with its search for a planning director, an effort that was stalled by the mayoral election. The search begun under the Hahn administration was scrapped and reopened with a new round of advertising and a proactive effort to recruit planning directors that have garnered a good reputation from other parts of the country, Ovrom said. Ovrom said the city has received applications from as many as 40 or 50 candidates, but he expects that most of those will not have the needed qualifications. Meetings to discuss the candidates could begin as early as this week, and Ovrom said he’s hopeful a decision will be made by the end of the year. Soon after the job, which pays between $169,671 and $254,402 a year, became available, former Mayor Hahn announced he would convene a panel of business and community leaders to advise in the selection process. That idea has been scrapped, but Ovrom said the input the mayor’s office has received will serve as a checklist as the candidates are reviewed. “It’s a really difficult job,” Ovrom said. “On the one hand, people expect a great urban visionary, somebody who really has a picture of where L.A. is and where it should be going. At the same time, it’s a huge administrative job. The dichotomy is one of the challenges.” Property Management Assigned Coreland Companies has picked up a management assignment in Simi Valley. The company will manage Mountaingate Village, a 222,000-square-foot shopping center at First Street and Los Angeles Avenue. The center is anchored by RiteAid, Big 5 and Bally’s Total Fitness. Recent Leases Funrise Toy Corp. has inked a deal to relocate from its Woodland Hills facility to an industrial property in Van Nuys. Funrise signed a lease for 24,000 square feet of space at 7811 Lemona Ave. The deal is valued at $1.8 million. Ron Feder, a broker with Lee & Associates-LA North/Ventura, represented Funrise. Kim Wolfson, a broker with Majik Industrial Properties, represented the lessor, Cinmark Co. Feder also handled a deal for 38,000 square feet of space at 5446-5448 Satsuma Ave. in North Hollywood. That deal is valued at $1.5 million. Mike Weavor of Paramount Properties represented the tenant, Billy Stabile Properties. Feder was joined by Todd Snyder representing the lessor, Bur Wit Ltd. Senior reporter Shelly Garcia can be reached at (818) 316-3123 or by e-mail at [email protected].