Comments
DIGITAL DIVIDE - It is a well-known fact that Council President Paul Krekorian has been pushing to expedite the adoption of the Metro Transportation Communication Network (TCN) digital billboard advertising program since the program was brought before the City by Metro. Krekorian has a long history of seeking to commercialize the City’s public right-of-way with advertising structures. Until now, his efforts have not been successful, and our public right-of-way has been protected from all advertising structures with the exception made for transit shelters.
The Metro TCN program isn’t proposed for installation on the LA City right-of-way; its digital billboards are to be installed on Metro’s land – some zoned Public Facilities, others zoned Industrial and commercial. Although on Metro land, the program must obtain LA City approval to proceed. And that required the City to figure out a way to permit the program, with its 41 NON-contiguous structures to be installed across the City because the proposed digital billboards would not qualify as a Sign District under the City’s Sign Ordinance.
The Planning Department’s answer was to create a Supplemental Use District (SUD). The City Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and recommendations and the proposed ordinance to establish the SUD on September 14, 2023. Their recommendations were then sent to the Council’s PLUM Committee who considered the program on November 7 and December 5, 2023. In each Council Committee meeting, relevant documents to the Council File were not provided and posted until shortly before the scheduled meetings making it impossible for Neighborhood / Community Councils and concerned constituents to properly review and consider changes being made to the proposed program. And, in fact, the TCN program was scheduled to be heard in City Council the very day after the December 5th PLUM Committee meeting on December 6th and then delayed two days to December 8th, giving the public no opportunity to prepare for the full Council hearing, at which hearing procedures provided us an opportunity to speak while we wondered: What’s the rush? Why the hurry? We still don’t understand, particularly as the program lacks language that protects and establishes the City’s ability to address unintended program consequences over the duration of the program and to exercise its authority to impose additional corrective measures if the impacts from TCN digital billboards aren’t mitigated as described in the Program, e.g. are proven to increase accidents, intrusive light glare, block visibility, etc.
Since the public hasn’t had adequate time to provide input, it is also very likely true that the Council offices have not had the opportunity to do their due diligence and address inconsistencies and flaws in the program as currently drafted.
The number of recent amendments presented reflects the hurried environment in which this program is being considered. The changes recently made by Council members are not included in the proposed ordinance in a consistent manner. These must be corrected either by technical correction or by City Council amendment. Who will introduce the Council amendment(s) to address these items and remove inconsistencies?
Language in the ordinance needs further clarification to remove the contradictory text that addresses recent changes made to protect designated scenic highways, parkways, corridors or scenic routes to mirror the Mobility Element of the General Plan and the protection of sites within 500 feet of the centerline of such roadways.
Language in the ordinance that refers to the distance between freeway-facing signs must clearly reflect the adopted minimum distance of 1500 feet, with removal to references to 1000 feet.
The formula used to calculate the way takedowns are to take place (50 signs to be removed at the time of the first installation request and 4 signs to be removed for each new billboard following the initial removals) must be reviewed to guarantee that the promised 200 billboard structures will be removed by the time all freeway-facing billboards are installed. The numbers currently do not add up.
If time allowed, there should be Council discussion about the change quickly adopted to allow poster-sized signs to meet billboard takedown requirements, and particularly the addition to allow poster sized signs of less than 300 square feet to be added together to total 300 square feet to be counted toward takedowns.
During public hearings, It was learned that some billboards slated for removal by Metro may be illegal and /or unpermitted signs. (The City has not seen or apparently has not requested the list of sign locations identified by Metro to be removed.) In the case of unpermitted /illegal signs, it does not seem reasonable that the City should have to share in the expense of removing those signs. The cost of removal of such signs should be borne exclusively by Metro and taken from Metro’s share of revenues. They have been receiving the benefits/revenues from signs the City should likely have ordered removed long ago. Many of those signs were inherited by Metro in land acquisition deals from former railroad rights-of-way, etc.
Of great importance is the fact that the City has not built into the program’s language any conditions that give the City the authority to impose additional corrective measures if the digital billboard impacts fail to mitigate as described in the Program. Additionally, there are no provisions to update to new technologies following initial installations as they become available over the life of the Program.
When the City Planning Commission recommended measures to strengthen the 2002 Sign Ordinance, the City Attorney’s office drafted the following language to address this very important protection:
- Based on new or updated information and studies, the City Council reserves the right to amend the standards and other provisions set forth in this Section and the illumination limitations set forth in Section 14.4.4 E of this Code in order to mitigate impacts on the visual environment on residential or other properties, to reduce driver distractions or other hazards to traffic, or to otherwise protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare. Further, the City Council reserves the right to apply these amended standards to existing signs and digital displays.
What was a good idea then is even a better idea today.
It does not appear that the City has any ability to weigh in on Program costs in order to exercise its fiduciary responsibility. The City should have full access to Project financial records, audit authority and defined roles in the strategic decisions that govern Program delivery costs. At this time, it is unknown as to whether Metro will subcontract out the construction and ownership of the signs or whether Metro will own the structures, and whether subcontractors will be retained to operate the signs. The City is granting Metro extraordinary leeway to operate the program in Los Angeles and has no ability to influence decisions made that could protect against inflated costs that affect the City’s anticipated revenues. The All Vision contract that led to this program was not awarded through an open RFP process and there is no assurance that subsequent agreements will deliver the most cost-effective program. The City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the City, not in the best interest of Metro.
Time is needed to sort these items out, and efforts to expedite this program are making it difficult for the City Council to do its due diligence. While public comments submitted to the Council File overwhelming reflect broad opposition to the program, Council President Krekorian continues to press for adoption before Council recess thus stifling Councilmembers from being able to do their jobs.
Numbers of problematic signs have recently been removed from the Program thanks to action taken by Councilmembers. But the job of adequately protecting the City from the proposed signs and the TCN Program is far from over. Neighborhood Councils deserve the opportunity to review recent Program changes and to communicate with the Councilmember about proposed changes and impacts of remaining billboards. Councilmembers need time to review Program inconsistencies so that they may be addressed and/or removed and the program improved before adoption.
In the spirit of the season, the best holiday presents that the City Council can give to its citizens this season are:
- policies adopted after CAREFUL consideration, where citywide impacts are considered as important as impacts to one’s individual council district;
- allowing adequate time for public input that is respected and not merely tolerated during allotted public comment periods;
- actually considering public comment and reflecting them in the motions subsequently considered;
- providing neighborhood councils adequate notice and time to respond to proposed policies and programs that will affect their communities;
- a thorough, unrushed review of the Metro TCN program to address its many inconsistencies, unaddressed impacts on historical resources, its proposed installations on land identified as suitable for housing, and placement of signs in close proximity to open space and parks, including consideration of concerns raised about the dangers of changing digital billboards and their ability to distract drivers. Because the dangers from driver distraction have been ignored throughout the City’s review of the Program, there have been no efforts to address roadway safety concerns and negative impacts on all roadway users, and particularly those most vulnerable users – pedestrians and bicyclists. The City needs to do its due diligence to question and evaluate the location and placement of freeway facing signs near freeway interchanges where driver roadway attention is most critical, as well as question Metro’s response to concerns about placement of non-freeway facing signs on streets designated in the City’s High Injury Network.
The Council’s last session before winter recess is Friday, December 15th. While it isn’t possible to instantly grant all our holiday wishes above, The Council can take the Metro TCN project off Friday’s agenda for a vote and instead, consider our comments, the many public comments submitted to the Council File in opposition, and testimony provided to date and halt the TCN’s advancement before winter recess to give time for the careful consideration warranted.
(Barbara Broide is a community activist currently serves as Co-President of the Coalition for a Beautiful Los Angeles (formerly Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight).)
