Local government plays a make-or-break role in commercial development, and that goes a long way toward determining whether a project is bad or beautiful financially, functionally and even aesthetically.

Governments, after all, dictate what types of projects will be allowed in specific areas of town, and lay down design guidelines on everything from building heights to driveways.

Will they work with the developer or stand in the way?

“On the big commercial development proposals, governments can make or break the projects,” said Cal Hollis, managing principal of Keyser Marston & Associates, a real estate consulting firm. Smaller projects, he said, often don’t require as many government approvals; nonetheless, even those can have difficulty navigating the permit process.

“If the developers bring projects that are in alignment with the stated goals of public policy makers, those policy makers then work for the project, not against it,” Hollis said. “Otherwise, staff take more liberties and impose their own views. This makes it harder for the developers causing delays, confusion and frequent redesigns.”

Los Angeles has garnered a reputation over the years as being a difficult place to get projects approved a well-earned reputation in the eyes of developer Al Taira.

Taira acquired 7.5 acres of land near Union Station at the corner of First and Alameda streets back in 1988. He had planned to build a 1 million-square-foot mixed-use development, complete with shops, a hotel and both market-rate and low-income housing.

But the approval process dragged on for 10 years, costing Taira more than $1 million in out-of-pocket expenses and untold millions in foregone revenues.

“It took five years just to get the environmental impact report approved,” Taira said. “There were some toxic problems that had to be addressed on the site, but the actual cleanup only took one year. The rest of the time was spent trying to comply with city and state guidelines.”

By the time the EIR was certified, the downtown boom was over and the riots had changed the outlook of potential tenants. Taira had to wait until the economy turned around to resume the approval process; he also had to alter the project to meet changing market conditions.

Even after the city made the process more business friendly, he still had to go through another round of traffic studies and come up with proposals to mitigate the effects of the project’s housing component.

Taira now has his approvals, but the market has changed so much in the last several years that he must go back to the drawing board to see if he can get new partners on board. That will take another year or two.

As to whether the new plans have to go through yet another round of approvals, Taira said, “I prefer not to think about that right now.”

Less than a mile away, developer Tom Gilmore had a very different experience with the approval process.

Two years ago, Gilmore began buying up five vacant historic structures around the intersection of Spring and Fourth streets, with the intention of converting them into 250 loft-style housing units and 60,000 square feet of retail space. He first brought the plan to the city less than a year ago, in December 1998. He expects to have all required approvals and financing in hand within the next 90 days and to start construction in November.

“It is amazing, really, when you think about it, that I can get a project approved by the city in less than one year,” Gilmore said.

One reason for the favorable response is the nature of his development.

“I picked a project that doesn’t make a lot of enemies,” he said. “It’s a bunch of vacant buildings in an area that desperately needs redevelopment, and everyone can agree on that.”

But Gilmore got more than just a series of quick sign-offs. He received direct help from the mayor’s Business Team in getting all the appropriate city department heads to sign off on the project. The City Council offices of Rita Walters and former Councilman Richard Alatorre helped push through an ordinance allowing for the reuse of the properties without rezoning.

In Hollywood, city officials have been so motivated to bring in new development that they broke speed records in approving TrizecHahn’s $385 million Hollywood & Highland project, which includes a theater to host the Academy Awards.

Only 18 months elapsed from the time the city first put out a request for proposals for the site to the time a development agreement was reached in April 1998. While a year and a half might be a long time to spend to secure a permit to build a corner grocery store, it is breakneck speed for such a major project.

“It was a very pleasant surprise to see the approval process go forward this quickly,” said Jerold Neuman, a land-use attorney with Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory LLP who has represented TrizecHahn. “All along, the staffs of all the agencies were deeply committed to making this happen.”

The key to the streamlined approval, he said, was that each of the city leaders came to believe in the project and did their utmost to make it happen.

“This was a project that captured everyone’s imagination, in a part of the city where everyone wanted to see something happen,” he said. Key to that, he said, was the successful revitalization of Times Square in New York that had been overseen by TrizecHahn executive David Malmuth.

While City Hall has been helpful to Gilmore and TrizecHahn, its policies have hurt development prospects in the Warner Center area of the San Fernando Valley. In early 1993, when local residents and city officials were expressing concerns about more development projects, the City Council approved a new specific plan for the area.

As part of the plan, the council imposed vehicle trip fees on all new development, averaging nearly $4,900 per vehicle trip. The idea was to raise funds to pay for infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate the additional traffic that new office towers would create.

“I absolutely believe that the fees have dissuaded people from developing here, even though there is now market demand for more commercial space in the area,” said Brad Rosenheim, a consultant who represents the Warner Center Association of businesses. “The fees increase the cost to both the developer and the end user, the tenants.”

Rosenheim believes the trip fees were part of the reason Blue Cross of California relocated its Warner Center headquarters to Thousand Oaks in the mid-1990s. (Another reason was the prospect of the city imposing millions of dollars in additional business license taxes as Blue Cross converted to for-profit status. Ultimately, the city and the HMOs reached a compromise; by that time, though, Blue Cross had relocated.)

Blue Cross officials did not return calls for comment.

The high trip fees have come to the attention of Councilwoman Laura Chick, who took office shortly after the fees were imposed. Chick introduced a motion earlier this year to re-examine the specific plan, including its trip fees.

“It’s really troubling to me that on the one hand we try to focus commercial development into designated centers like Warner Center and then on the other hand we have such onerous trip fees that one of our prime commercial centers is put at such a competitive disadvantage,” Chick said.