Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Advertising Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council approves settlement to resolve lawsuits over transit-advertising program
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council voted to accept a settlement aimed at resolving two lawsuits challenging the city's transit advertising program and asked the city attorney to prepare an ordinance to rescind September 2022 amendments to Los Angeles Municipal Code provisions on advertising in the public right-of-way.
The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously on a settlement intended to resolve two lawsuits challenging the city's transit-advertising program and related approvals.
The council approved a motion to accept the settlement in the cases Citizens for a Better Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (LASC case no. 22STCP03822) and Coalition for Scenic Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (LASC case no. 22STCP03909), and authorized the Bureau of Street Services' executive director and general manager to execute the settlement documents. The council also requested the city attorney prepare an ordinance rescinding the September 2022 amendments to Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 67.01 and 67.02. The vote was recorded as 15 ayes.
The action follows a Public Works Committee recommendation to approve the city attorney's recommendations and closes years of litigation and debate over how digital advertising in the public right-of-way should be regulated in Los Angeles. Council records show the settlement was discussed in closed session before the vote; the city attorney's office advised the council during closed session and the public motion asked the council to adopt the outlined recommendations.
Supporters of the settlement told the council the agreement provides stronger privacy and environmental protections than earlier contracts and clears the way for the city to move forward with a revised program that city staff say will generate revenue and provide transit amenities. Opponents, who participated in hearings and submitted court filings, had argued the prior contract did not adequately protect the public right-of-way, could create light- and signage impacts near sensitive resources, and lacked sufficient public outreach and environmental review.
The council's motion also directed staff to transmit the rescission ordinance to the city attorney for preparation, signaling a policy shift to replace the 2022 amendments with provisions negotiated as part of the settlement.
What's next: the council's direction requires the city attorney to draft the rescission ordinance and the Bureau of Street Services to execute the settlement documents. Those steps will occur in the weeks following the vote; the council did not provide an exact effective date for rescinding the code amendments in its motion.
Provenance: The transcript records the closed-session recommendation on the case (transcript excerpt referencing item 34) and the public motion, roll call, and final tally approving the settlement with 15 ayes. The Public Works Committee had previously recommended approval.
