Misadventures in CPRA Requests

Recently, I submitted a CPRA request regarding a planned replacement project for 36 RSO units in Westlake. One of the appeal points mentioned a citizenship requirement for the reserved low-income and very-low-income units.

I was hoping to find out if this was in fact true, and hoping to determine whether that is even legal or not. Again, this is in Westlake. Everyone in LA knows Westlake is a lower-income neighborhood with a large immigrant community. Even if it weren't, requiring US citizenship seems like a rather questionable move in a city where one out of every three people is an immigrant.

Dear readers, the city's bureaucrats just about drove me up the wall with their unprofessional antics.

On February 14, more than a month ago, I submitted a CPRA request to the Planning Department. I expected to receive digital copies as usual, since the law requires that they be available upon request.

This is the response Planning had the audacity to send me on the 15th:

If you are unable to view the screenshot, it reads:

Hello, C.C.:
The Planning Department has determined it has records related to your request. The Case File, DIR-2018-4135-TOC-SPR, is located at Records Management, and to review the file, please see the information below:

For members of the public, please be aware that beginning on June 2, 2022, our office changed to the BuildLA Appointment System which is an online system.

In order to make appointments to review files, please log on to the following website and sign up for an Angeleno account: https://appointments.lacity.org/apptsys/Public/Account

There is also a YouTube video that has been created to assist you on How to Register An Angeleno Account

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nekPMcX7QA4&ab_channel=BureauofEngineering-CityofLosAngeles

At that time, should you wish a copy of any of the documents, the cost is .10 cents per page (Los Angeles Administrative Code 12.40).

Thank you.

Excuse me? I work from 8 to 5, Monday through Friday (and the occasional Saturday) in a department that is often understaffed. I don't have the luxury of playing hooky just so I can do a bureaucrat's job for them. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of working Angelenos are in the same boat.

What do we call them? PUBLIC records? If they're not accessible to the entire public, do they even count as public records?

I wrote back to the sender of the email (Beatrice Pacheco, Chief Clerk of the Department of City Planning), explaining that I was unable to go in person. This is the reply she sent (transcribed below):

You can hire someone to review it for you. Or we can count up the pages, bill you for the cost of the copies and you can pick them up. Our office hours are:
8:30 to 4:00 Monday through Thursday 8:30 to 3:00 Friday
We are located at 221 N. Figueroa Street, Room 1450 L.A. 90012

Excuse me? The city is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to provide digital copies upon request.

I sent the following reply (transcribed below):

Hello Beatrice,

Let’s try this one more time.

Section 6253.9 of the California Public Records Act requires that digital copies of the records be available.

Again, I am writing to request the Planning Commission’s project documents on 714-760 Grand View Street, specifically those pertaining to requirements for future residents of the proposed 100-unit development. (https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/0fae2205-9ae1-4432-9f43-a5c836627f9e/DIR-2018-4135.pdf)

The requested information will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

Thank you.

The following morning, I received the following response (transcribed below):

Hello please be aware that not all records in the physical file are available in digital format.

That being said, we will see what’s available digitally and respond accordingly.

Have a good day.

Yeah, nice try. You can't fool me that easily.

Planning shares its documents digitally, and sends digital documents between departments. Digital documents would also have been sent to the CD1 offices. There's no way in hell they didn't already have the documents available digitally.

So I sent the following reply, adding a few specifications on the advice of some friends who are well-versed in CPRA requests:

I will need these in EML format, which you are required to provide by the CPRA at section 6253.9(a)(2) as you use this format to create copies for your own use. Exporting emails in this format will automatically include their attachments in native format. If it's easier for you to provide, MBOX format is also acceptable.

If you find it necessary to redact any of these emails, please note that both EML and MBOX are text formats. The files can be opened in any text editor, e.g. Notepad, and segregable exempt material can be redacted by replacing it with innocuous symbols, e.g. ++++++++++++++++++++. Any other method of redaction destroys the essential character, i.e. the searchability and sortability, of the record and violates the CPRA at section 6253.9(a)(1). This method of redaction is probably easier for you as well since it allows search and replace.

Oh, and Planning documents should be available digitally since that's how they are shared within City Planning and between departments. They should also have been sent to CD1.

Thanks for your help.

I got an out-of-office response from Planning.

I also emailed the CD1 offices and Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez (as the site is in CD1) on February 22.

Here is that email (transcribed below):

Dear Custodian of Records:

Per my original email sent on 2/14/24, I am again writing to request the Planning Commission’s project documents on 714-760 Grand View Street, specifically those pertaining to requirements for future residents of the proposed 100-unit development. Appeal Point 5 references a citizenship requirement, and I wish to clarify this. (https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/0fae2205-9ae1-4432-9f43-a5c836627f9e/DIR-2018-4135.pdf)

I will need these in EML format, which you are required to provide by the CPRA at section 6253.9(a)(2) as you use this format to create copies for your own use. Exporting emails in this format will automatically include their attachments in native format. If it's easier for you to provide, MBOX format is also acceptable.

If you find it necessary to redact any of these emails, please note that both EML and MBOX are text formats. The files can be opened in any text editor, e.g. Notepad, and segregable exempt material can be redacted by replacing it with innocuous symbols, e.g. ++++++++++++++++++++. Any other method of redaction destroys the essential character, i.e. the searchability and sortability, of the record and violates the CPRA at section 6253.9(a)(1). This method of redaction is probably easier for you as well since it allows search and replace.

Oh, and Planning documents should be available digitally since that's how they are shared within City Planning and between departments. They should also have been sent to the CD1 office.

The requested information will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires. (Again, my first request was eight days ago on 2/14.)

C.C. de V.

Editor, emptylosangeles.com

On February 23, nine days after my initial request, Planning FINALLY sent a OneDrive link to the requested records.

I heard absolutely nothing from CD1 until March 8 (really?!) when Councilmember Hernandez' Legislative Director, Lyric Kelkar, sent me the following email (transcribed below):

Hi there,

Thank you for your patience.

We will have responsive documents to you by the end of the day, Friday, March 29.

Should you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.

Lyric

Well, Lyric, my questions are "ex-f**king-scuse me?!" and "what the f**k are Angelenos' tax dollars paying for?!" March 29, really? Six WEEKS after the initial request, and far longer than the 10 calendar days allowed by law?

Councilmember Hernandez, if you happen to see this, it's REALLY not a good look for your office.

(IF I do indeed receive an update by the end of the day on the 29th, I'll update this. But that's a BIG "if" and I'm not optimistic.)

(Edited March 30: never heard a peep out of the CD1 office. Lies, lies, lies.)