Council Chastizes City Attorney, Supports Signage for L.A. Live's Regal Cinemas
Ed Fuentes
Chief Deputy City Attorney Bill Carter represented the office of Carmen Trutanich at Friday's hearing, in which multiple Councilmembers voiced their displeasure with the office's handling of the billboard ban.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Members of the Los Angeles City Council berated the office of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich on Friday during a three hour hearing over signage proposed for the exterior of the Regal Cinemas at L.A. Live.
Council voted 12-0 to direct Building and Safety to issue the signage permits, and AEG CEO Tim Leiweke said that he expects to see the permits issued today. He also said that his company is moving forward on plans for other approved signage on the project, including a 10,000 square foot LED sign on the side of the L.A. Live hotel tower.
"I'm just glad we're beyond it," Leiweke told reporters after the vote. "We just want to get on and be good citizens here and hope that I have enough guts and age left in me to go develop another project in this city."
Leiweke believes that the Council's actions today represent support for other signage approved as part of the L.A. Sports and Entertainment District Plan. "I think they sent a very strong message with a 12-0 vote that they are going to honor the legal agreement that the City has with us."
One of those remaining signs is an 8,000-square-foot LED display that AEG and Panasonic announced in January. That sign will move forward. "We have the structure, we've bought the LED boards, said Leiweke.
Multiple Councilmembers expressed their frustration with Trutanich, who was reported to have threatened charges to City officials, including Councilwoman Jan Perry, if permits for the signs were issued.
Deputy Chief City Attorney Bill Carter presented his office's case that allowing the Regal signs would open the City up to additional lawsuits over signage. He disagreed with the Council's take on the provision in the August billboard ban that allowed signage for projects with permits already approved, stating that only the final sign permit was eligible for consideration there.
The Regal Cinemas opens on Tuesday, with all 14 screens showing the Michael Jackson film "This is It."
blogdowntown issued live updates from the Council hearing, the contents of which can be found below.
10:40am -- Council is underway, with presentations and proclamations. Roughly fifty union construction workers just showed up in support of AEG, as have the company's legal counsel and Senior V.P. Ted Tanner. CEO Tim Leiweke is expected to be here.
11:00am -- Presentations and proclamations just finished. The meeting itself is getting underway.
11:25am -- Public comment just finished and the signage item has started. Perry is making opening comments, asking Building & Safety, Planning and others to come to the table.
11:30am -- Perry runs through history of specific plan for L.A. Live area and her confusion why they have not been issued. AEG CEO Tim Leiweke is in the room. There are 18 comment cards already in. They're making one last call for comments.
Michael LoGrande, Chief Zoning Administrator, started to speak when he was interupted by the City Attorney's office asking to go into closed session. Perry is objected. Trutanich's earlier comment on the topic "leads me to believe my interests would not be adequately represented," says Perry.
11:35 -- Ed Reyes says "I'm just going to brutally blunt ... We approved it." He doesn't sound too happy with Carmen Trutanich. "We have to decide as policy makers what's in front of us and direct the departments to do their jobs."
11:45am -- Deputy City Attorney (not Trutanich) is asking that closed session discussion occur before any direction to departments.
Rosendahl makes motion that Council wants to hear from City Attorney right now. No second.
Still discussion of what will happen procedurally.
11:50am -- Ray Chan, interim head of Building & Safety, says that he and his staff believe the Regal's six signs are vested. City Attorney objects to any more comments. Council overrules.
"We were told by the City Attorney that it should be the Court to issue the vesting determination," says Chan. He reiterates that charges were threatened if the department approved the signs.
11:55am -- Bill Carter, Chief Deputy City Attorney, reiterates the office's view that, given lawsuits, there are only two ways a sign is legal. "One, if you have a sign permit, which AEG does not have. Two, if you have done substantial work pursuant to that sign permit."
Carter says that his office told AEG that on-site signs were fine. "That's what this is about," he says in reference to off-site signs.
12:00pm -- City Attorney Carter asks why AEG didn't go get sign permits earlier. "I think someone should ask them that," he said.
Michael LoGrande points out that the L.A. Sports and Entertainment District Specific Plan has different definitions for "on-site" and "off-site" signs. It considers more things to be on-site.
Chan says that his department is confused why the City Attorney says Building & Safety doesn't have vesting determination rights.
12:05pm -- Councilman Rosendahl is asking whether he can ask AEG some questions.
Carter has a "continued objection" that legal discussion should be in closed session.
AEG is sending up its General Counsel.
12:10pm -- AEG lawyer: "We have been assured over and over again ... that our vested right interests cannot be overruled by any changes in the code."
"We believe the City should comply with [the vested interest rights in] that August ordinance."
AEG CEO Tim Leiweke is up next.
12:15pm -- "I'm embarrassed that we have to take you through this today," said Leiweke. "I think it's a terrible waste of your time."
"You do not negotiate with a bully," said Leiweke in reference to why the company did not go to court with the City Attorney for clarification.
12:20pm -- Deputy Chief City Attorney is reiterating that his office is against only off-site signs.
"I heard Mr. Leiweke say 'I'm not a lawyer.' That's right, he's not," said Carter. "I'm a lawyer."
"AEG has the right to install their on-site signs," said Carter. "They will not open with blank walls. The Michael Jackson signs, for instance, can be installed."
12:30pm -- Councilman Bernard Parks says that he's concerned that Councilmembers believed things that the City Attorney is now saying is no longer true. "We all left here believing that when you were in that situation, the ordinance does not affect that," he said, referring to the Galen Center, Coliseum and L.A. Live.
Public comment is starting, with Central City Association head Carol Schatz up first. "The City needs to keep its promises," she said.
12:35pm -- At the core of this issue seems to be the agreements that AEG has signed with its sponsors. Leiweke said that if the permits were not issued, the company would go into default with its agreements.
I asked AEG spokesman Michael Roth whether the company believes it could go put up the Michael Jackson signs right now, and he emphasized that this is about the bigger picture of the city honoring its contract.
12:55pm -- Public comment continues. Most speakers have been in favor and have emphasized that the City needs to honor the rules it sets out. Perennial City Hall gadfly John Walsh is up now, creating theatrics.
1:00pm -- Public comment is over, and Councilman Tom LaBonge is speaking now, reminding Council of the long history the City has of pushing for this project and revitalizing what was a rundown neighborhood.
1:05pm -- Councilman Paul Koretz repeats Parks point that Council believed the ordinance passed in August would have no impact on the L.A. Live signs.
City Attorney says the Council was voting on a permanent ban, and voting on the language of the ordinance.
But: "Whatever decision you make today, we will represent you."
1:20pm -- Councilman Dennis Zine is proposing that AEG agree to just do on-site signs until the judge rules on whether the project's signage rights are vested.
City Attorney doesn't believe that's a viable solution, because baseline municipal code has stricter square footage regulations.
1:30pm -- Councilman Herb Wesson is speaking, and has some harsh words for the City Attorney. "I did not hire an attorney to put my back to the wall," he said.
1:35pm -- "I'm really wrestling with the notion of trust with the City Attorney," said Councilman Ed Reyes. He accuses the City Attorney's office of wanting to create policy.
Alarcon: "The intent of the City Council was clear ... but somehow, in the City Attorney's opinion, the ordinance does not capture the City Council's intent." He says the City Attorney erred in creating the ordinance.
1:40pm -- This period after public comment has turned rough for the City Attorney. Councilman Alarcon is taking his turn raking the office over the coals.
Basic gist of the discussion: We meant one thing and yet you did another. How do we fix it?
1:55pm -- Councilwoman Jan Perry is up again, after starting this whole item off nearly three hours ago.
Perry is asking for a correction to the ordinance passed in August. She's also asking for the CAO to look for funding for outside counsel to represent her if the City Attorney comes after her.
Motion (to support Building & Safety's opinion) is up for vote now and passes 12-0.
For more backstory on this issue, read our Saturday story on the dispute.
Other stories from the L.A. Times:
Dave Bullock (@eecue) on October 23, 2009, at 12:25PM – #1
So wait, this was never about the movie posters on the wall? And AEG actually does want to put up giant billboards? Doesn't this change the whole thing now? I feel cheated.
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on October 23, 2009, at 12:38PM – #2
Dave: My understanding is that this is about the bigger picture. That will include movie posters for the MJ film, but longer-term it includes signage similar to that around the rest of the complex. That's a mix of ads for events on-site and for sponsors.
Sebastian Mele on October 23, 2009, at 12:55PM – #3
I thought this was a sign district.
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on October 23, 2009, at 01:01PM – #4
Sebastian: It's technically signage that's been approved through a specific plan, not a sign district. In theory that's a stronger, more rigorous process.
The City Attorney, though, is saying that the Court has said that specific plans, sign districts, etc are all invalid.
loveandhatela on October 23, 2009, at 02:38PM – #5
More importantly WWMJD?
What Would Michael Jackson Do?
:)
Scott on October 23, 2009, at 03:42PM – #6
It sounds like everyone is well intentioned, and the City Attorneys are being made out to be the bad guys based upon their interpretation of the Court's actions.
AEG appears to be somewhat of an innocent victim in this. Although their offer to mitigate city legal costs probably does not cover the overturning of the signage moritorium.
It may be months or years before we understand the outcome of today's actions, but for now, we have chosen to side with our business partner based upon intentions that all agreed upon. This is certainly reasonable and even noble. The ultimate cost of this decision in terms of the signage moratorium remains to be seen.
When judges can legislate from the bench, we lose the clear legal path. Intentions no longer matter if they are not agreed with.
Although the tactics of the City Attorney's office (as widely reported), appear to have been overly heavy-handed, I applaud their basic mission of protecting the city's treasure and positioning us to be able to defend our actions.
Gayle Goodberry on October 23, 2009, at 10:01PM – #7
Planning and Building & Safety Departments are responsible for the most screw ups in the city. As for the dummys that represent us, I don't want a single penny of taxpayers money going in defense of that fat-ass Perry. She can earn it making license plates. And what is wrong with Ed Reyes. Can't he ever utter a single intelligent sentence.
Deborah Ffrench on October 24, 2009, at 06:29AM – #8
I am delighted sense has prevailed. To have denied AEG - who are investing $2.6 billion in LA, these previously agreed permits would have been ludicrous. Hopefully this unanimous council decision to honour their original agreements will send a clear message to Trutanich; - that the people of Los Angeles are not only tired of the endless grandstanding of highly paid public officials, but that we are also thinking long-term. We want investment in our city. In case, anyone hadn't notice, we are in the middle of a global recession. So here's a question: A $ 2.6 billion investment over a few billboards that had already been pre-approved? Hard math? Not really. As a taxpaying citizen, I take extreme umbrage at the decidedly cheap comments of a man who thinks that the excessive numbers and 'overkill' policing that City Hall and the LAPD themselves decided was appropriate for Michael's memorial,'wasted a lot of dough.' And Trutanich's claim that this dispute was merely about the 'legality of current billboard ordinance' - is laughable. Hopefully this City Council's decision is a reminder that the old truism: -you can only fool some of the people some of the time - is a sign of things to come.
nanorich on October 24, 2009, at 10:53AM – #9
Trutanich is not a well intentioned guy. He is an ambitious Republican who ran a nasty, dishonest campaign against Jack Weiss...
is attempting to display his anti-Downtown credentials to his valley and South Bay constituents by using heavy handed bullying tactics against "City Hall."
He should shut up, and go prosecute misdemeanors and negotiate slip and fall accident suits against the city as his job entails.
So far, his tenure in public office has been a disaster. Not bad for a guy who just got sworn in.
mark on October 24, 2009, at 12:14PM – #10
nanorich nails it in a nutshell, short and sweet. The fact that Trutanich got away with that nasty campaign is a sad testament to the hold that his campaign mgrs J Shallman and "Republican Party strategist" had on the LA Times especially editorial dir. Jim Newton (since relieved of duties at least in good part to championing this embarrassment - though passionately anti-city hall/ huge Nuch fan Robert Greene is still there) as well as the reporting side's assigning the election largely to David Zahniser who is of the Jill Stewart/ LA Weakly/ Ron Kaye (former ed. of Valley's Daily News) school of opinionated, conservative "reporting." The extreme bias was striking to many - add to that the decimation of the investigative reporting ranks, so that this "fixer" from Long Beach flew in under the radar on his own campaign spin and was never vetted. It's turning out as expected that "the Nooch" is just what Weiss's campaign said he was but was slammed (especially by the same cast of characters at the Times, surprise surprise) in a case of shoot the messenger.
Anyone who followed the election on KRLA's rightwing nighttime show would have known all along that Nooch was running as a very conservative Republican and all noises to the contrary were just a Machiavellian ruse.
So here we are with the City Council realizing that the forces that had been turned against their colleague Weiss (the anti-Measure B/ DWP rate hikes/ all anti-tax sentiments) were just the tip of the iceberg and they've coalesced even more angrily against everything to do with City Hall, with some of these people - largely older valley and Pedro/ South Bay conservatives, some angry westsiders mad about billboards and development and traffic in general - supporting "the Nooch" against "the crooks and liars and cockroaches" at City Hall.
Empowering Nooch to feel he can bully and threaten to sue and jail everyone from volunteer Planning Commission and Board members to AEG's own lawyer and top executive to the head of L A's Building & Safety to a councilwoman like Jan Perry. (Who had gone along with Trutanich/ Dep. Carter's "advice" to forbid Controller Greuel from being represented by outside counsel even though Trutanich was suing her, and Greuel had to go into court representing herself since she sensibly didn't trust Trutanich to send one of his deputies to defend her against himself. A "suggestion" the presiding judge said in so many words defied logic.) Many are saying that Trutanich's pompous boorish behavior, meddling ignorantly in his dept., was the last straw for Bratton, too.
What's too bad is that it took all THIS, for the Council to realize they've got a total clown with Goodyear Blimp Republican Ambitions on their hands, trying to set policy and pre-empt the jobs of Council, Controller and Mayor (it's NOT his job to make retroactive financial demands on AEG, and his numbers are wrong, anyway) with the city in fiscal crisis.
So instead of giving them sound legal advice he's out to grandstand to his own base on everything from billboards to marijuana dispensaries (after getting the medical cannabis community to campaign for him big-time) and is a wrench in the smooth functioning of city hall. At LEAST if there were a steady course, we'd know who to "blame" but this way, we've got someone just plain unfit for the office, legally and temperamentally, acting like a wrench.
Downtown Dude on October 24, 2009, at 12:29PM – #11
Can we impeach or oust "the Nuch"? I think I've seen enough of his misguided ego. He's failed to do his job big time. This whole thing was not the job of the City attorney at all. Wow.
nanorich on October 24, 2009, at 01:03PM – #12
Thank you Mark.
I had forgotten Jill Stewart was still around. Sometimes I wish that the Valley has secession crap had won....
I was push polled by the Nooch...and told the poor caller I would rather lick ground glass off the streets of Calcutta than vote for that jerk.
But wow, he sure had a lot of money, that guy.
Not bad for a nobody from Long Beach.
Naturallawyer on October 24, 2009, at 01:51PM – #13
For the record, (re)interpreting laws contrary to their intent is decidedly ANTI-conservative. Trutanich's party affiliation isn't really relevant to his abuse of the law (and the trust of the people who hired him). That's something that bad lawyers of all political stripes do on occasion when it serves their interests.
Additionally, while I'm no city planner and have no knowledge of how various parts of the city obtain/fight for funding (and therefore may be about to say something really ignorant), I am getting sick and tired of everyone in the LA area who is anti-downtown (lawyers, politicians, LA Times writers, suburbanites, etc.). I don't waste my time being anti-Santa Monica or anti-Valley or anti-South Bay. I can understand small business owners wanting to protect their slice of the pie, but it mystifies me that people would hate one whole part of the city and not want to see it live up to its potential. A success for downtown will eventually mean a success for other areas, won't it? More commerce, more jobs, more tax revenues, more momentum... Why does this attorney care about signs on the side of a movie theater, and care so much as to torture the clear intent of the city council?
nanorich on October 24, 2009, at 04:23PM – #14
You might want to google: logical fallacies if you are going to argue from the flawed premise that just because some people hate downtown (because it is a racist code word for minorities who are perceived to run city government, duh.), that people who disagree with those people hate the valley or South Bay. False equivalencies make bad argument. (something even unnatural lawyers know)
And yeah, Trutanich's party affiliation is absolutely relevant to this discussion....at least if you know anything about LA politics. Or why some guy would be grandstanding and bullying....and misusing his office.
(hint: it has nothing to do with the job he was elected to, which he is not performing now. )
Eric Richardson (@blogdowntown) on October 24, 2009, at 05:00PM – #15
nanorich: I don't think that's what Naturallawyer was saying at all... He doesn't understand the anti-Downtown thought, because he couldn't ever see feeling the same toward another section of town. I think that's what you're saying as well.
Don Garza on October 24, 2009, at 05:27PM – #16
Downtown Los Angeles is the machine that will bring revenue to this city. Downtown Los Angeles has become the financial engine that is catalyzing the rest of the City of Los Angeles to become it's true potential. Other parts of the city now have to up their game because of the competition that is now Downtown Los Angeles. Stop hating on Downtown Los Angeles. Or keep expressing it and we know we are doing great and moving forward...
The truth is that AEG wants signage...let them have signage!!! I have regal cinemas in my neighborhood now!!! I don't have to go to Holllywood anymore to pay lot's of money to see a movie, just walk a couple of blocks to LA LIVE. And if I want to really make a day of it, ride the redline to universal studios, then hit Hollywood and highland , then come to LA LIVE. It is our entertainment districts that will eventually send money into our general funds of this city to provide the services. Let them eat cake..oh! I mean let them have signs!!!!
nanorich on October 24, 2009, at 06:31PM – #17
Eric,
If that is the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I am no great fan of LA Live, and don't look forward having the Regent my local. And it is a fairly safe bet that it will probably go the way of City Walk. (I will probably be taking the subway to The Arclight or The Vista from now on...)
I would also like to mention this is the last weekend of the The Grande. I went to see Bright Startoday....and if you aren't doing anything tonight or tomorrow, you could do worse than checking that movie out, and say goodbye to an old friend.
Bright Star is a gorgeous film...well worth seeing...and is something of a tear jerker, so it is an appropriate film for saying goodbye to The Grande.
Clowncil on October 25, 2009, at 03:40PM – #18
The only bully in this is a large, very rich developer who believes that laws do not apply to those with enough money to support, or work against, politicians.
To start, every City Councilmember who has accepted contributions from AEG should have recused themselves -- but that would have likely left Council without a quorum to act on the issue.
The City Attorney's point to Council seemed pretty clear (although greatly distorted in the media) that allowing these permits to move forward after the ordinance will open the door for an assault on the ordinance itself.
If Councilmembers are worried about pay-to-play prosecutions then they should speak up and disclose their financial interests (campaign contributions) received by the parties before them so there is true transparency in the process.
All Council had to do in this was pass their billboard ordinance after AEG installed their signs.
Time and time again this City Council creates its own problems by contradicting itself and then labels anyone who tells them as much "a problem".
Well, if telling politicians when they have screwed up is a problem in a democracy, perhaps City Councilmembers should reconsider what their role in government is -- it's not to use their offices to cloak their mistakes and it is certainly not to use their offices to shield their contributors from the realities of their own actions.
We need more outspoken office holders like the current City Attorney if we are going to reverse the decade or more of rampant pay-to-play corruption that has become City Hall politics.