Former L.A. Planning Commission president testifies about strange meeting with Ray Chan
Former L.A. Planning Commission president testifies about strange meeting with Ray Chan
David Ambroz said he felt wrongly pressured to approve the proposed redevelopment of the Luxe Hotel, one of two projects at the center of Chan's federal corruption trial.
Former L.A. Planning Commission president testifies about strange meeting with Ray Chan
In one respect, David Ambroz’s 2017 meeting with a Los Angeles deputy mayor at the Mama Shelter bar in Hollywood was typical: The self-described picky eater and vegetarian said he often finds himself looking at food he can’t eat.
But in every other respect, the now-former L.A. Planning Commission president’s meeting with Raymond Chan was bizarre. It wasn’t just the gritty setting far from City Hall: Chan’s pinpoint knowledge of a proposed hotel redevelopment struck Ambroz as unusual for someone in such a high-ranking position, and Ambroz felt pressured by Chan to support the project.
“What it felt like to me is I was having a conversation with a lobbyist,” Ambroz testified Thursday in Chan’s federal corruption trial.
But he also knew he was talking to one of Los Angeles’ most powerful appointed officials because of Chan’s status as the deputy mayor for economic development.
“When the deputy mayor talks to you, I always feel like it has the authority of the office behind it,” Ambroz said, referring to then-Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office.
Ambroz’s testimony put Chan at the forefront of a shadow effort to force city entitlements for billionaire Fuer Yuan’s redevelopment plans for the Luxe Hotel on Figueroa Street, a project in which prosecutors say Chan had a special interest because Yuan was bribing him and now-former City Councilman Jose Huizar.
The Luxe project is one of two failed developments at the center of Chan’s trial. The 66-year-old retired City Hall veteran faces potentially decades in prison if convicted in a 12-count indictment that includes racketeering and bribery charges.
Chan wanted to speak with Ambroz about the Luxe because of an upcoming Planning Commission vote, and Ambroz testified that he left the meeting feeling as though he’d “been leaned on.” But he also didn’t believe he could do anything about it, and he felt he could still approach the project independently, he said Thursday.
“I remember walking out being like, Who do I call? Do I call the mayor? Do I call a hotline and say, ‘Hey, I think the deputy mayor is trying to lean on me?’” Ambroz testified.
‘An iron fist and a soft glove’
The jurors who will decide whether to convict Chan were shown phone records during Ambroz’s testimony that establish Chan repeatedly contacted Ambroz from a private number when trying to arrange a meeting, which Ambroz said were odd and conflicted with well-established city ethics policies.
The men eventually met on May 12, 2017, at Mama Shelter on Selma Avenue, described by Ambroz as “not exactly a sports bar,” but packed with TVs and sticky tables.
“I thought it was an odd selection,” Ambroz said. “It would be like seeing your doctor at McDonald’s.”
The topic also seemed problematic.
“I had never really been leaned on to support a project this way,” he said. “It just did not feel like a good sensation or feeling that the deputy mayor wanted to talk to me about a project off site.”
Ambroz, currently a communications executive with Amazon, recalled driving from his then-office at Disney headquarters in Burbank, parking behind a “beautiful post office on Wilcox,” then walking into “with respect, somewhat of a crappy bar.”
“It was just not my kind of establishment that I’d want to go to,” Ambroz said. “I’m a little picky about what I eat, and I’m a vegetarian, and this place’s special was chicken wings.”
But as a non-meat eater, Ambroz said he’s accustomed to “politely having food eaten in front of me,” so he didn’t order food while Chan did. Chan didn’t end up eating, though. He only discussed with Ambroz the Luxe project, Ambroz said, and he was very prepared.
In his direct-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Faerstein worked to establish that Chan had a specific reason to meet with Ambroz above the other commissioners: Not only was Ambroz the commission president, he was outspoken about too much signage in Los Angeles.
“No human has ever said, ‘Put up more digital signs in front of me,’” Ambroz explained from the witness stand. Yet, he said, that’s exactly what city officials do. He called signs “a source of corruption.”
“The project was, in my mind, essentially a giant billboard,” Ambroz testified.
Ambroz said his meeting with Chan was “superficially pleasant” but with an overarching power dynamic “of which I was less powerful.” Chan also had “a sword hanging over me” in the form of a resignation letter that Ambroz had signed earlier. Ambroz testified that he knew his time would eventually end, but he wasn’t ready to go yet.
“It was an iron fist and a soft glove,” Ambroz said of Chan’s approach. “On the surface, it was very polite,” he said, but there also was “a clear mandate that I was being asked to comply with.”
‘I just felt uneasy’
Ambroz said he left with “a deep sense of unease.” He thought about how he’d joined the Planning Commission hoping to help address the homelessness crisis downtown, but the topic never once came up in his one-on-one meeting with Chan.
“I walked out and sat in my car and I just thought, what the heck is going on here?” testified Ambroz, who grew up homeless. “I just felt uneasy.”
But Ambroz said he wanted to continue on because he was confident in his ability to stay independent and was bothered by activity in downtown that “felt so corrupt.” Ambroz said he was “very concerned” about the influx of development in Huizar’s downtown district, particularly around the Staples Center. He was seeing “a lot of odd things being requested” of the Planning Commission, and all the activity felt “not right.”
“If things were marching and they marched over me, then so be it,” Ambroz testified.
He eventually voted for the project and passed it on to the City Council, though it stalled amid the growing City Hall scandal.
In cross-examination, Chan’s lawyer Harland Braun emphasized that Mama Shelter is located about halfway between City Hall and Ambroz’s Burbank office.
“He didn’t force you to drive all the way to meet with him,” Braun said.
“It would have been easier,” Ambroz said, telling Braun that geographical distance in L.A. is not always the same as driving distance and that time of day must also be considered.
Ambroz also told Braun he “hated the corruption” surrounding the downtown development.
“We all hate corruption. Do you think you’re unique about that?” Braun asked.
“I do not, sir,” Ambroz answered. Braun asked Ambroz about the City Council approval process of the project, but Ambroz said he didn’t know the details.
“I felt I had to turn away because of the corruption I felt was going on there,” Ambroz testified.
Jose Huizar’s estranged wife testifies
Ambroz was followed on the witness stand by Huizar’s estranged wife, Richelle Rios, who identified herself by her legal name, Richelle Huizar, but confirmed she now goes by Rios.
Her answers were short and her demeanor subdued as Mack Jenkins, who is the chief of the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office’s criminal section, asked about her learning “significant and difficult information” about her husband in 2013.
Rios answered that her husband “had a consensual affair with a staff member” and went on to describe how a lawsuit threatened her husband’s reelection at a time when he had then-county supervisor Gloria Molina as an opponent. She recalled meeting in 2013 with Huizar, Chan and billionaire developer Wei Huang and his associate Ricky Zheng.
At the time, Huang was bribing Huizar to support his proposed 77-story L.A. Grand Hotel, and he wanted to help assure Huizar’s reelection by ensuring his wife didn’t divorce him. Rios testified Thursday that she “pretty much reassured them that I was going to stay in the marriage.”
Rios said Chan later visited her home to see Huizar, but “Jose wasn’t there yet,” and Chan ended up telling her that Huang was willing to pay the $600,000 Huizar needed to settle the lawsuit. The testimony supports prosecutors’ argument that while Chan didn’t join Huizar and Huang on their Vegas gambling trips, he played a key role in the scheme and served as a Chinese-to-English translator for Huizar and Huang.
Marital privilege prevented Rios from testifying about anything Huizar told her, but she confirmed that she saw him with a stack of hundred dollar bills after he first returned from Vegas, but her conversation with him about it turned unpleasant and she didn’t feel comfortable asking him about his Vegas cash hauls again.
She also testified about flying to Vegas with her husband for New Year’s Eve 2014 on Huang’s private jet, then spending time alone as Huizar gambled with Huang. They returned home later than planned, missing their children’s activities because Huizar had been gambling, she said.
But she stayed with him for another few years, testifying that she started regularly depositing cash he’d given her in 2016 and 2017. She also testified about her husband’s plan for her to run for his Council seat, and a meeting Chan arranged in April 2018 in which they pressured her to announce her candidacy. She did so in the fall 2018, but backed out because of “the FBI searching my home.”
“I just didn’t see a path forward after that,” Rios testified.
Jurors see ‘blatant, flagrant’ Huizar text
Jurors on Tuesday heard from Morrie Goldman, a former political consultant who pleaded guilty in 2020 to a conspiracy to commit bribery charge in connection with the City Hall scandal and is now working at a winery in northern California. He said he was skeptical of the viability of Rios’ Council candidacy, describing her as “not someone who had the fire in her belly” for a political run.
“It really didn't look like she was very enthusiastic about running,” Goldman said. But Huizar was enthusiastic about raising money for her Political Action Committee: Jurors saw a text message he sent Goldman that said, “are they going to donate to the PAC?”, referring to a developer with a proposed project downtown. Goldman texted back, “As your friend - let’s discuss this in a different text thread.”
Goldman said on the witness stand: “What he was talking about was illegal, unethical and inappropriate.” He said Huizar did such things on occasion “but this was like the most brazen, flagrant.”
Huizar, who resigned from the City Council in June 2020, took a plea deal last month in which prosecutors said they’ll recommend no more than 13 years in prison. His sentencing is scheduled for April 3.
Chan’s trial continues Friday with testimony from George Chiang, an associate of Yuan who owned a consulting company that employed Chan after he retired from the city. He began testifying Thursday afternoon. The trial is expected to end next week. Chan will be testifying in his own defense.
UPDATE: I’m told trial has been cancelled for Friday because Braun fell ill and is in an emergency room. Let’s all send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery! Trial is scheduled to resume on Monday, but if Braun is still ill, Judge Walter may have to declare a mistrial.
Previous coverage:
Feb. 25: 'This is scary, boss': Jurors hear ex-Los Angeles Councilman Huizar's covert bathroom meeting
Thank you for reading Legal Affairs and Trials with Meghann Cuniff. I am experimenting with posting here a lot more as a way of moving away from Twitter. Check out the homepage for news I didn’t email, and please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help me bring this website to the next level. Thank you for your support!
“[Ambroz] thought about how he’d joined the Planning Commission hoping to help address the homelessness crisis downtown, but the topic never once came up in his one-on-one meeting with Chan.”😔
“I walked out and sat in my car and I just thought, what the heck is going on here?” testified Ambroz, *who grew up homeless*. “I just felt uneasy.”🤢
Who really got screwed over by the City Hall corruption scandal? Thousands of marginalized people who are locked out of the 17,000 new unaffordable housing units that went up in DTLA over the past decade, who are now also banned from sitting, sleeping or having personal property in thousands of public places including City Hall, are the human victims of these criminal acts.
Do these court proceedings include any remedy for the sabotaged futures of thousands of humans who are being pushed around by LAPD & Sanitation in the shadows of these shiny monuments of corruption? Can any of the unaffordable units or developments that were illegally approved be seized by the City for use as public housing?