CommentsGUEST WORDS-The federal indictment of Jose Huizar on felony corruption charges illustrates how the city councilman allegedly used his position as chair of the council’s powerful Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee to shake down developers.
If proven true, the charges also show that Huizar’s schemes were greatly facilitated by the woefully non-transparent way the committee conducts the public’s business.
Community activists often say that efforts to influence a project or ordinance must be exerted before the matter reaches the PLUM committee, because important decisions are likely to have been made before meetings are gaveled to order. One may have thought that Huizar’s arrest and removal as chairman might have changed that backroom mode of operation, but apparently not.
A case in point is the committee’s approval this year of revisions to an ordinance regulating the placement of advertising signage on temporary fences surrounding construction sites and vacant lots. Adopted in 2007, the ordinance was touted as a solution to the problem of graffiti on construction site walls and litter around vacant lots by requiring the companies putting up the signs to keep specifically-defined areas around the sites clear of such blight.
As might have been expected, sign companies and property owners quickly found ways to profit from the ordinance in ways that had nothing to do with its ostensible purpose. The loose definition of “construction site” was the biggest culprit. Plywood fences were thrown up around operating businesses and parking lots and slathered with ads for movies, soft drinks, and other products, all strictly legal because the property owners had taken out building permits. Those permits were usually for minor things like changing windows or installing irrigation systems, but as long as they were active, advertisers could beam their sales pitches at motorists and pedestrians.
Community groups in areas inundated with these sidewalk-level versions of billboards demanded action to stop the abuse. In response, the city Planning Department put out a memo in October 2016, that said, among other things, that signs on walls around “operational” businesses and active parking lots weren’t allowed. This was a step in the right direction, but because of a proliferation of the sites and the fact that fines for violation were far too low to act as an effective deterrent, the problem remained widespread.
The department then embarked on a comprehensive revision of the ordinance that would explicitly exclude signage walls around operating businesses. The City Planning Commission (CPC) approved a revised ordinance in 2017 with that prohibition and other changes, such as banning signs on walls not actually needed at construction sites and limiting the amount of time the advertising could be displayed.
When the ordinance first arrived at the PLUM committee in 2018, there were complaints from some business and sign industry representatives about the operating business ban. They argued that a site with multiple businesses could only avail itself of the signage if every business was closed. But In a 2019 report to the committee, the Planning Department opposed any change, saying that allowing operating businesses within sites enclosed by walls and fences with signs would “greatly increase the number of sites throughout the City that would be eligible to post temporary signs, effectively expanding the scope of this program.”
The PLUM committee scheduled a vote on the ordinance for March 3, 2020. At that meeting, senior city planner Phyllis Nathanson gave a summary of the revised ordinance, including the operating business prohibition. After giving members of the public their one minute to weigh in, committee chairman Marqueece Harris-Dawson opened the floor for committee discussion. The only member to speak was Councilman Bob Blumenfield, who wanted to allow the signage in special zones called Residential/Accessory Services zones, something that would require a separate ordinance.
The committee clerk then read into the record a number of amendments, including one “To allow temporary construction signs on lots with operating businesses. . .” Without discussion, the committee voted to adopt the amended ordinance and send it to the City Attorney’s office for final preparation.
Where did the amendments come from? The three pages now posted in the city’s council file system are dated March 3, 2020, the same date as the meeting. Members of the public who sent emails to the committee and the handful who actually attended certainly hadn’t seen them. And apparently, even Nathanson hadn’t seen them, which may be the most astounding fact of all.
Somebody lobbied for those amendments. Somebody wrote them. All without the scrutiny that is central to a democratic system but anathema to politicians like Jose Huizar and, apparently, to his successor, Harris-Dawson and the other members of the PLUM committee. A democratic system where the public is excluded from deliberations over an issue of significant interest is a broken system.
One of the major breakdowns illustrated by the temporary construction sign ordinance is the link between the PLUM committee and the CPC. While it’s impossible to say there is never any behind-the-scenes maneuvering with the commission, it affords the public ample opportunity for input and its members generally engage in extended debate before voting on a project or ordinance.
But far too often, significant changes to commission approvals are made by the PLUM committee with minimal public notice and discussion. This modus operandi is shown in the criminal complaint against Huizar, where developers allegedly bribed the councilman to get what they couldn’t get from the CPC. And the other PLUM committee members, with the exception of Mitchell Englander, who has pled guilty to his own corruption charges, either sat on their hands or averted their eyes.
The city charter requires that City Planning Commission approvals modified by City Council committees go back to the commission before a final council vote. Because changes of a technical nature are frequently made before that final vote, the director of city planning has standing authority to act on the commission’s behalf. This keeps the system from getting bogged down, but it also opens a very wide door to abuse.
For example, the Huizar criminal complaint alleges that the councilman took a bribe from a downtown developer to get rid of an affordable housing requirement imposed by the CPC. The PLUM committee approved that with minimal discussion, and it was sent on to the full council.
But what if it had gone back to the CPC? Would somebody have said, “Wait a minute, why was this significant requirement thrown out?” Would members have discussed the importance of the requirement, and the need for more affordable housing, not less? Would Huizar’s alleged scheme unraveled? Impossible to know, because it didn’t return to the CPC. Just as city records are replete with projects where significant changes were made at the last minute by the PLUM committee but never got back to a public body where discussion seems to be encouraged, or at the very least, tolerated.
The construction wall sign ordinance isn’t the most earth-shaking of city issues, but if approved with the latest changes it will certainly lead to more commercial advertising on city streets. And community groups consider these signs blight; support for banning them on sites with operating businesses was almost universal. Their position was supported by the CPC, and apparently, even by the Planning Department.
But somebody whispered into the PLUM committee’s ear, and now that ban is consigned to the trash.
Just one more sign, no pun intended, of the broken system.
(Dennis Hathaway is the former president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight (now the Coalition for a Scenic Los Angeles). He is currently working on a book about the Lincoln Place Apartments in Venice and the long battle between its tenants and landlord over redevelopment of the property. Dennis is an occasional CityWatch contributor.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
