Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Planning warns cuts would slow or pause community plans, threaten compliance and delay housing approvals
Summary
City Planning said a proposed elimination of 35 positions — roughly 25% of filled staff cited at the hearing — would curtail community planning, threaten timely implementation of housing and environmental programs, and risk exposing the city to penalties under state housing and permitting timelines.
Vince Bertone, director of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, told the Budget Committee that the mayor’s proposed budget would eliminate 35 planning positions (about a 25% reduction of current filled staff) and that many of the department’s programs are funded by special funds or fees that are intentionally subsidized for public participation and due process.
Bertone said community planning and project planning are among the programs most affected. He warned that cuts to community plans and project planning would slow plan adoptions that are already years in process and put at risk multi‑year investments—such as Harbor area plans and environmental justice elements—because the department has invested substantial consultant and staff time to those efforts. Several councilmembers stressed that pausing community plans midway would waste prior investment and that some projects—plans and entitlements that have reached a critical stage—would cost more to resume later.
Planning staff described specific areas at risk: neighborhood and community plan capacity (central/downtown, Harbor area, Southwest Valley), environmental justice and oil regulation units, Historic Preservation (HPOZ) staffing, nuisance abatement work, and GIS/systems staff (a roughly 40–50% proposed reduction in mapping/GIS roles). Bertone noted that fee updates (planning fees have not had a major revision since 2008) and special fund adjustments could offset some costs and that a matrix study for code enforcement and process modernization is in procurement to identify efficiency and technology fixes. Members asked for a range of targeted follow‑ups:
- a memo to identify critically near‑complete community plans that would be costlier to pause or cancel; - a memo on moving certain zoning review functions from the Department of Building and Safety into Planning and funding them from DBS enterprise funds to preserve project planning staff; - targeted memos on the San Fernando Valley planning work and the Venice Local Coastal Program (the LCP) to detail how cuts would affect timelines and previous investments; and - a special study analyzing proposals to consolidate development services across Planning, LADBS, Public Works bureaus and DOT.
Bertone said the department has proposals to identify revenue options (fee study underway) and suggested some project planning positions are reimbursable or full cost recovery; councilmembers asked for a CAO analysis of restoring filled, revenue‑generating and legally essential positions and requested prioritized memos describing the effects of cuts on RHNA‑related work, ADU processing, and AB 1033 implementation timelines.
Planning emphasized the legal timeline risks: state housing and permit streamlining laws can produce “deemed approvals” or monetary exposure if review timelines are missed, and litigation and defense costs could exceed savings from staff reductions.
Committee members requested an array of follow‑ups to quantify the fiscal and programmatic impacts and to explore options that preserve planning capacity critical to housing and economic development.
