May 2025 Land Use Report
May 2025 / Westside NC / LUPC Report and Sample Motions for Council consideration
In this report:
CF 22-1154-S1
Mills Act Program update (comment deadline 5/23)
State Measures:
AB 342
SB 607
SB 609
SB 71
SB 79
SB 677 (WRAC already issued a letter to the legislature in opposition)
See: https://westsidecouncils.com/adopted-positions/
SB 673
AB 306
CF 24-1128 (adopted)
Cal Trans I-405 repaving project
Board of Public Works changes
Zone 0 Board of Forestry proposed HFSZ landscape rules
Referrals to Council
Articles of interest:
Luskin Quality of Life Index for LA
AI Just Hit LA’s Bldg Permit Process
Efforts to remove above-ground utility lies may not result in removal of unsightly poles
———————————————————————————————————————–
CF 22-1154-S1: On April 11, Councilmember Tim McOsker introduced a motion that proposed to implement an RFP to allow installation of hundreds of 8-9 foot tall two sided digital advertising kiosks on sidewalks throughout the City. The motion seeks to move forward with a previously approved RFP adopted under LA City for what was originally proposed as the IKE Smart City digital kiosk program.
City Planning Dept deadline for comments on the City’s MILLS ACT program due May 23. The message from Planning:
STATE MEASURES: For any STATE measures listed (and those not included), the WNC can adopt a position that is then forwarded as a request to our Councilmember to introduce a Council File Motion for the City to take a position and adopt that position in the city’s 2025-26 State legislative agenda so that the City’s lobbyists can actively oppose the measures. This is because NC’s are not permitted to lobby their state reps directly as a City Neighborhood Council. However, individual stakeholders, HOAs and community or other organizations may contact their local reps and are encouraged to speak up and be heard!
AB 342 Hospitality Zones and local control (Haney) proposes allowing local governments to create “Hospitality Zones” where alcohol sales could extend until 4 a.m. on Thursday-Saturday nights and state holidays within a hospitality zone, defined to include a Hospitality Zone and a Special Event Hospitality Zone.
April 1 referred to Committee on Govt. Organization (for the second time following amendment)
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB342/id/3087264
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab342
MOTION: The____ NC opposes the extension of alcohol sales beyond current law that requires service to halt by 2 am and urges the LA City Council to adopt a motion of opposition and to include such opposition in the City’s 2025-26 Sacramento legislative agenda.
SB 607: This bill is a CEQA Reform Measure that is viewed as a broad rollback of CEQA protections that have existed for over 50 years. Signed into law in 1970, CEQA is considered the most far-reaching environmental law in California. In short, CEQA requires California public agencies to conduct an environmental review process to identify significant environmental impacts of a “project” and to adopt feasible mitigation measures for those impacts before approving a project. A “project” is defined as any action that will result in a physical change to the environment. A required CEQA review process can result in three different determination/document types – an exemption, an Initial Study with Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ND or IS/MND), or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A project’s anticipated significant impacts (or lack thereof) governs the “level” of determination or document to be prepared. There are 33 categories (or classes) of projects that qualify for exemption (categorically exempt) and would need no further CEQA analysis.
MOTION: The __ Neighborhood Council strongly opposes SB 607 (Wiener) and urges our Councilmember to introduce a Council File motion to include opposition to SB 603 in the City’s 2025-26 Sacramento Legislative agenda.
Compromising California’s landmark environmental protection measure at a time of great uncertainty as to the future of protections provided by Federal statutes is both unwise and dangerous.
More details: The bill, authored by Scott Wiener, weakens environmental review requirements for nearly all private and government projects, including freeways, airports, dams, railyards, shopping centers, sports complexes, power plants, prisons, and mining operations as well as for massive mixed-used developments on farmland, sensitive habitat, or in high wildfire danger zones (with a token exception for distribution centers and oil and gas infrastructure).
SB 607 is not a minor “technical fix” or “clarification” – nor is it primarily about streamlining infill housing or clean energy (as falsely claimed in a press release from Wiener). Infill housing in urban areas is already largely exempt from CEQA. (The portion of the bill that addresses infill housing should be considered separately with the CEQA items What it does appear poised to do if enacted is the rollback of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) which are an invaluable tool to ensure that a proposed project’s significant impacts are disclosed and lessened (mitigated). By discouraging EIRs, SB 607 makes it easier for agencies to ignore credible scientific evidence on air pollution, water contamination, ad climate impacts – information that an EIR would include. EIRs also ensure government transparency and accountability in land use.
Without EIRs, members of the public receive much less information and have no right or opportunity to have their/our comments and questions answered, and public officials have less accountability. Reduced public participation leads to further erosion of the democratic process.
Into the Weeds: From the legal point of view, the bill eliminates the fair argument standard entirely which is viewed as the heart of CEQA. The fair argument standard means that if a “fair argument” can be made that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall be prepared. The fair argument standard is intended to ensure that CEQA review occurs when there is a possibility of a significant environmental effect, even if it has not been definitively proven. (The question: Does a fair argument exist for a significant impact?)
Existing law requires the lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, as provided.
SB 607 would instead require a lead agency to determine whether a project is more likely than not to have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, and would require an EIR to be prepared if the lead agency determines that it is more likely than not that a project will have a significant effect on the environment, as specified.
The bill passed out of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee earlier and narrowly passed through the Seate Local Government Committee (4 to 3) April 30th. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote.
SB 609 (Wicks) CEQA: Exemption: housing development projects: This bill would exempt from the requirements of CEQA a housing development project, as defined, that meets certain conditions. The bill would require a local government, as a condition of approval for the development, to require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment, as provided. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a housing development project qualifies for this exemption, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program (without funding support).
Sponsored by CA YIMBY and Bay Area Council.
To be heard 5/5/25 I for Assembly second reading
SB 71 (CF 25-0002-S31) – oppose SB 71 and oppose the Council File introduced 4/22 by CM Raman.
Additional info: SB 71 – transit CEQA exemption – This bill would expand the CEQA exempt for certain transportation projects (e.g., restriping, bike lanes) to cover ANY project to add, eliminate, or modify any transit route or do a comprehensive transit operational analysis. This would allow any transit route, including light rail routes, to be added, rerouted, expanded, or eliminated without any CEQA review. It essentially takes all transit projects short of a heavy rail line out of CEQA. Livable California’s conclusion: “The environmental effects could be monstrous!!”
MOTION: The _ Neighborhood Council opposes SB 71 and opposes CF 25-0002-S31 the Council File containing a motion that proposes LA’s official support of the measure in the City’s 2025-26 State Legislative agenda.
SB79: ( CF 25-0002-S19) (Lee) To be heard in Senate Appropriations 5-12-25
Current law prescribes requirements for the disposal of a local agency’s surplus land (currently defined as land owned in fee simple by ay local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Current law defines “agency’s use” for these purposes to include land that is being used for agency work or operations as provided. Current law exempts from this definition of “agency’s use” certain commercial or industrial uses or activities, as specified. This bill would additionally include land leased to support public transit operations in the definition of “agency’s use,” as described above.
MOTION: The __ NC supports CF 25-0002-S19 which recommends that the City of Los Angeles adopt a position to oppose SB 79 in the City’s 2025-26 Sacramento legislative priorities.
Notes: There is no affordability requirement. If the bill advances and has not been halted, need to Amend to require 20% affordable housing SB 79 – CEQA exemption and ministerial approval of residential developments (up to 7 stories) on any site zoned for residential, mixed use, commercial, or light industrial development within a certain radius of a TOD transit stop (with the radius and development characteristics specified in accordance with the specified tier of TOD stop). Such project would be subject to the Housing Accountability Act, and in a “high-resource” area project denial would be presumed in violation of the HAA. However, for a project requiring construction of a transit passenger rail storage and/or maintenance facility at a separate site from the main project site, the storage/maintenance site would not be exempt from CEQA. This bill is similar to SB50 but goes several steps further. CalCities: SB 79 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Transit-oriented Development. This measure would require cities to approve higher-density residential projects up to 7 stories near public transit stops ministerially regardless of local zoning codes, limit the use of local development standards on the proposed project, and allow transit agencies full land authority over residential and commercial development on property they own or lease. Cal Cities Position: Oppose
MOTION: The Westside Neighborhood Council opposes SB 79 and requests CM Yaroslavsky to introduce a Council File motion to oppose the measure in the City’s 2025-26 State Legislative agenda.
SB 677: The Planning and Zoning Law requires a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements. This bill would require ministerial approval for proposed housing developments containing no more than 2 residential units on any lot hosting a single-family home or zoned for 4 or fewer residential units, notwithstanding any covenant, condition, or restriction imposed by a common interest development association.
Cal Cities opposes: This measure would limit local government’s ability to impose objective standards on SB 9 projects with 1,750 net habitable square feet in the floor area. It would also eliminate local agencies’ ability to provide setback requirements, height limits, lot coverage limits, floor area ratios, or any other standard that would limit residential development capacity for these projects. Finally, this measure would prohibit local governments from collecting impact fees for projects less than 1,750 square feet.
MOTION: The _ Neighborhood Council opposes SB 677 and requests CM __ to introduce a Council File motion to oppose the measure in the City’s 2025-26 State Legislative agenda.
SB 73: CEQA Exemptions In addition to existing exemptions, this bill would additionally exempt those projects located in a very low vehicle travel area, as defined. The bill would require that the project is undertaken and is consistent with either a specific plan prepared pursuant to specific provisions of law or a community plan, as defined, for which an EIR has been certified within the preceding 15 years in order to be exempt.
The bill has not advanced out of policy committee as of yet. Scope needs to be narrowed. May not be a concern to us as it addresses very low vehicle mile travel areas.
AB 306: Summary: Current law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. The California Building Standards Law establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Current law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). The State Housing Law establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Current law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Current law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Current law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.
California AB 306 faces considerable opposition, primarily due to concerns about its impact on building safety, resiliency, and local autonomy. The bill would freeze the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units for a period of six years, with limited exceptions. Opponents argue this could hinder progress in addressing issues like earthquake preparedness, climate change, and energy efficiency.
AB 306 would freeze state code updates for residential units for nearly a decade, and could prevent updates aimed at addressing earthquake risk, flooding, energy storage systems, energy and water utility costs and structure fires. It would also prohibit updates that simplify the code or reduce construction costs, including updates within the 2024 International Residential Code® (IRC) that are estimated to save homeowners as much as $2,200 on newly constructed homes that are built to the 2024 IRC.
MOTION: The _ NC opposes AB 306 and urges CM _ to introduce a Council File motion to have LA City oppose this measure as part of the City’s 2025-26 Sacramento legislative agenda.
CF 24-1128 – Approved as amended at PLUM 4/8. Scheduled at Council on 4/30 and approved as amended in PLUM.
Report from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) relative to providing options for property owners to be subjected to accountability measures regarding inactive construction sites; options to enhance development requirements; feasibility and proposed implementation of a requirement for a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) No Trespass Authorization; options for methods for LAPD and Los Angeles Fire Department to notify LADBS when there are multiple calls for service to an address.
MOTION: No longer needed. Passed 4-30-25.
The Westside NC supports CF 24- 1128 and the recommendations in the December 20, 2024 report back from LADBS regarding oversight and accountability of negligent property owners and developers for construction sites.
The amended/adopted motion:
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT (PLUM) COMMITTEE REPORT relative to providing options for property owners to be subjected to accountability measures regarding inactive construction sites; options to enhance development requirements; feasibility and proposed implementation of a requirement for a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) No Trespass Authorization; options for methods for LAPD and Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) to notify the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) when there are multiple calls for service to an active or inactive construction site; and related matters.
Recommendation for Council action:
- INSTRUCT the LADBS to create a new category for reporting violations on the Department’s website, categorized as sites in prolonged pre-development or under construction and potentially inactive construction sites, to aid the Department’s investigation and enforcement efforts.
- INSTRUCT LADBS to report back on the feasibility and necessary steps to mandate site security and explore opportunities to hold owners financially accountable for negative externalities to the local community, including but not limited to insurance bonds the City can leverage to fund the demolition of incomplete pre-development and construction sites causing a nuisance, as well as identifying any other potential improvements to the City’s current system.
- INSTRUCT the LADBS and LAPD to report back on a process for requiring the Trespass Arrest Authorization (Form 03.21.01) as a mandatory requirement for building permits to obtain extensions of time for permits, including the clearances necessary to effectuate this requirement.
- INSTRUCT LADBS, in consultation with LAPD and LAFD, to develop an interdepartmental reporting system or process for identifying prolonged pre-development sites and inactive construction sites that pose a nuisance to the community.
- INSTRUCT LADBS to develop a process, in coordination with DCP and the respective Council Office, to proactively contact the owners, applicants and developers of nuisance sites in prolonged predevelopment or development, with the goal of expediting the completion of their planning and permitting processes and/or construction.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
TRANSPORTATION: Caltrans I-405 Repavement Project Update 5/28, 6 pm via Webex
Caltrans District 7 would like to extend an invitation to our WSSM members to attend a virtual presentation on the I-405 Pavement Rehabilitation Project on Wednesday, May 28 at 6 p.m. Caltrans has received multiple requests from neighborhood councils and associations for a presentation on this project four-year project(!) and wanted to ensure everyone has the opportunity to attend a presentation and have their questions addressed.
In order to accommodate the volume of requests, they ask that questions about the project be submitted by May 19 at 5 p.m. To submit your questions, please email repave.405@dot.ca.gov and include your organization name and May 28 in the subject line. When you register for the meeting, you will receive the meeting link and a calendar invitation.
Register: https://cadot.webex.com/weblink/register/rf59522c6c24182c34126f3437eeee5a1
For more information about the project, visit the project webpage and list of FAQs HERE.
Board of Public Works: The Board has elected a new President Steve S. Kang to fill the remaining term of President Khorsand (through June 30). Mr. Khorsand’s slot is open. He has moved to a position in the Mayor’s office.
Controversy over State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Board of Forestry policy regarding landscape rules for “Zone 0” that seeks removal of all vegetation within a 10-foot zone of structures. These proposed State rules were developed in response to the Paradise fire – that took place in a forest setting very different from LA’s hillsides and high fire severity zones. A Board of Forestry public workshop was held May 12 at which local folks made some of the following points provided by Dr. Travis Longcore:
1) Rule should exempt healthy vegetation and instead focus on eliminating plant species that are documented to be risky
2) Rule should exempt locally protected tree species (e.g., oaks, sycamores, walnuts) from removal in zone 0-10 ft from structures.
3) Rule needs to specifically exempt municipal street trees, which are now at threat of removal because of the expansion of the fire hazard zones into urban neighborhoods.
4) Rule should not change the requirements for the distances tree limbs must be kept from structures because the leaf litter rule covers that risk.
5) Rule should provide extra flexibility for vegetation in areas where homes are less than 20 feet apart where the relative potential risk of vegetation is far lower compared with risk of adjacent structure.
6) Rule should specifically grandfather pre-2008 structures not built to California Building Code Chapter 7A standards beyond the 3 year compliance timeline.
It is not known whether any additional Zone 0 Regulatory Advisory Committee public meetings will be held. Written comments for the May 12 meeting were to be submitted to: PublicComments@bof.ca.gov.
REFERRALS TO COUNCIL
4/30
17-0900-S29 To Housing & Homelessness
Motion (Blumenfield – Yaroslavsky) relative to the appropriation of funds from the Proposition HHH Permanent Supportive Housing Loan Program Revenue Fund for staff positions to expedite the approval process for 100 percent affordable housing projects and temporary shelters, under Executive Directive 1.
25-0481 To Public Works and Transportation 4/30/25 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0481
Motion (Blumenfield, Raman – Soto-Martinez) relative to amending the Los Angeles Administrative Code to assign the responsibility for maintaining City bicycle and multi use paths to the Department of Public Works and aligning staff and funding, at least, equal to that for streets and sidewalks.
From the motion: I FURTHER MOVE that the Council INSTRUCT the City Administrative Officer, with the cooperation of DPW and the Department of Transportation, to provide recommendations regarding alignment of staffing and funding to provide an adequate level of of maintenance for bicycle and multi-use paths, at least equal to that provided to streets and sidewalks..
CONCERN: What does “level” “at least equal to” mean? Same funds, percentage of staff, or???
LA City has 23000 lane miles of streets, 800 miles of alleys, 7400 centerline lane miles
LA City has 9,000-10,000 miles of sidewalks.
There are a small fraction of City bicycle
24-1321 To Planning and Land Use Management Committee City Attorney report, dated May 6, 2025, relative to a draft Ordinance to relocate Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter I, Section 11.5.14 to a newly established Chapter 1A, Article 13, Division 13B.12, and to amend Chapter 1A Sections 13A.2.2, 13A.2.4., 13A.2.10 and 15.2.2, know as the Redevelopment Plan Procedures Chapter 1A Transition Ordinance.
25-0510 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0510
To Transportation Committee
Motion (Lee – Raman) relative to identifying a list of ten eligible street segments for speed hump installation and funding within the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Speed Hump Program.
17-0447-S2 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=17-0447-S2
To Arts, Parks, Libraries, and Community Enrichment Committee
To Energy and Environment Committee
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
City Attorney report, dated May 5, 2025, relative to a draft Ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 187709, which prohibits new oil and gas extraction and makes existing extraction activities a nonconforming use in all zones.
25-0002-S15
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0002-S15
To Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Chief Legislative Analyst report, dated May 5, 2025, relative to Resolution (Blumenfield – Nazarian) to include in the City’s 2025-26 State Legislative Program a position on SB 279 (McNerney), which would allow farmers and wine grape growers to compost onsite, and community composting, urban farms, and school farms to compost up to 500 cubic yards of green waste.
25-0002-S31
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0002-S31 SB 71- CEQA Exemption bill
To Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee 5-5-25
Chief Legislative Analyst report, dated May 2, 2025, relative to Resolution (Raman – Jurado) to include in the City’s 2025-26 State Legislative Program a position on SB71 (Wiener), regarding California Environmental Quality Act exemptions. Removes sunset date of 1/1/30.
The motion concludes with:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that by the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2025-2026 State Legislative Program SUPPORT for SB 71 (Wiener), which would make permanent the statutory California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for transit and active transportation projects that advance the state’s climate, ~ ……. safety, and public health goals, while improving access and mobility options.
25-0002-S39
To Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Resolution (Padilla – Hutt, et al.) relative to establishing a position on SB 220 (Allen) and any attempt to restructure the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors without a locally-led, publicly engaged consensus-based process, as already required by existing law.
To Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Resolution (Padilla – Hutt, et al.) relative to establishing a position on SB 220 (Allen) and any attempt to restructure the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors without a locally-led, publicly engaged consensus-based process, as already required by existing law.
25-0297 Weed and brush abatement https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0297
To Council
City Attorney report, dated April 24, 2025, relative to a draft Ordinance for the 2025 season determining and declaring that weeds, rubbish, refuse, and dirt on certain streets, sidewalks, and parkways, and on, or in front of, certain private properties are a public nuisance, and ordering the abatement of these nuisances.
25-0447
To Housing and Homelessness Committee 4/24/25
City Administrative Officer report, dated April 23, 2025, relative to executing a new agreement with Exygy, Inc., to develop the Comprehensive Housing Search and Application System for the Affordable and Accessible Housing Registry.
19-0050-S1
To Public Safety Committee
Motion (Lee – Blumenfield) relative to the verbal notification requirement for individuals who are within a portion of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that is not open to the public.
23-1182
To Housing and Homelessness Committee
Chief Legislative Analyst report, dated April 22, 2025, relative to the Homelessness Outreach Inventory and Needs Assessment.
25-0006-S5
To Ad Hoc Committee for LA Recovery
Department of General Services Revised report, dated April 22, 2025, relative to a report back on the feasibility of establishing a centralized permit operation center, including possible expansion or improvement of the existing facility at 1828 Sawtelle.
25-0207
To Housing and Homelessness Committee
Chief Legislative Analyst report, dated April 22, 2025, relative to creating a City Department responsible for the development and management of the City’s homeless programs.
25-0441
To Public Safety Committee
To Public Works Committee 4/23
Motion (Jurado – Padilla) relative to instructing the City Attorney, with assistance from the Bureau of Street Services and the Los Angeles Police Department, to report on enforcement of LAMC Sec. 62.17 4, Injury to Trees, including the current penalty for violations as well as recommendations to update or strengthen the code.
MORION: I THEREFORE REQUEST that the City Attorney, with assistance from the Bureau of Street Services (BSS) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), report within 15 days on enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Sec. 62.17 4, Injury to Trees, including the current penalty for violations as well as recommendations to update or strengthen the code, including but not limited to: • In addition to the current penalty, requiring the payment of the In-Lieu Fee for Tree Planting Requirements as set out in LAMC Sec. 62.177; • Tiered financial penalties based on the age of the injured tree; • Tiered financial penalties based on the extent of injury to the tree; • Tiered financial penalties based on the percentage of tree canopy lost via injury to the tree. I FURTHER MOVE that BSS report within 15 days with an outreach plan to ensure awareness of and encourage adherence to LAMC Sec. 62.174.
NOTE: Motion should be amended to include the cost of ESTABLISHIG a new replacement tree. There must be resources provided for watering new trees (crews and equipment) as well as purchasing, and planting.
MOTION: The _ NC supports CF 25-0441 and the updating of penalties for violations of the ‘Injury to Trees” code with the added recommendation that the motion be amended to incorporate penalty assessments that include the cost of establishing new replacement trees including the resources (staff and equipment) for purchasing, transporting, and watering the tree(s) until established.
25-0445 4/23/25
To Housing and Homelessness Committee
Motion (Raman – Soto-Martinez, Yaroslavsky) relative to instructing the Chief Legislative Analyst to identify data silos and data bases with City Departments and programs that may have a nexus to homelessness, but whose data are not capture in the Homeless Management Information System.
20-1376-S4
To Housing and Homelessness Committee 4/22/25
Motion (Lee – Park) relative to implementing the provisions of Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 41.18 in designated areas where comprehensive outreach has been conducted for a minimum of three months and where individuals who have been offered housing multiple times over that three month period, and have refused those housing offers repeatedly, should no longer be permitted to camp within those areas.
15-0719
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=15-0719-S19
To Budget and Finance Committee
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
To Transportation Committee
City Attorney report, dated April 30, 2025, relative to a draft Ordinance adding Article 34 to Chapter 5, Division 5 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code to establish the Mobility Investment Trust Fund, and repealing Section 5.111.19 of Article 13.9, Chapter 5, Division 5 and Section 5.115.10 of Article 26, Chapter 5, Division 5.
15-0989-S54 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=15-0989-S54
To Ad Hoc Committee on the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games
To Public Works Committee
Bureau of Engineering report, dated April 30, 2025, relative to a moratorium on construction activity during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
20-1125-S1
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1125-S1
To Government Operations Committee
Department of Cannabis Regulation report, dated April 30, 2025, relative to a proposed ordinance amendment to Article 5, Chapter 10 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code concerning cannabis land use restrictions.
25-0006-S77
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0006-S77 5/2/25
To Ad Hoc Committee for LA Recovery
To Housing and Homelessness Committee
Motion (Soto-Martinez – Yaroslavsky) relative to the City’s response to complaints of price gouging in the rental housing market, received by any City Department, for the duration of the statewide emergency order declared in response to the January 2025 Fires.
25-0011-S5
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0011-S5
To Council
Motion (Yaroslavsky – Lee) relative to the transfer/appropriation of funds from the Street Furniture Revenue Fund to the Koreatown Youth and Community Center for a community beautification project in Council District Five.
25-0600 The City Budget Last day to act: 5/30/35
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0600
17-0090-S29 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=17-0090-S29
To Housing and Homelessness Committee
Motion (Blumenfield – Yaroslavsky) relative to the appropriation of funds from the Proposition HHH Permanent Supportive Housing Loan Program Revenue Fund for staff positions to expedite the approval process for 100 percent affordable housing projects and temporary shelters, under Executive Directive 1.
25-0006-S76 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0006-S76
To Ad Hoc Committee for LA Recovery
Motion (Park – Lee) relative to amending Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.8907, Division 89, Article 1, Chapter IX, to permit other government agencies and departments to perform abatement at the request of the Department of Building and Safety.
25-0418 https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0418
To Government Operations Committee
Department of Cannabis Regulation amended report, dated April 29, 2025, relative to the department’s 2024 comprehensive fee study.
25-0480
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0480
To Budget and Finance Committee ($75,000)
City Attorney report, dated April 28, 2025, relative to a request for closed session to discuss a proposed legal services agreement with Aleshire and Wynder, LP, to provide legal services related to the litigation Californians for Homeownership; Yes in my Backyard v. City of Los Angeles. RE: Californians for Homeownership and Yes In My Backyard v. City of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. 25STCP00546 (“CFH”), currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
ARTICLES OF INTEREST
Annual UCLA/Luskin School Quality of Life Index survey reports on the public perception of quality of life in LA County .
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/data/qualityoflife/
The UCLA Lewis Center hosts data and information for the Los Angeles County Quality of Life Index on behalf of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. All resources listed below are available to the public with the exception of the raw survey data, which is only available to members of the UCLA community. UCLA community members can access these data by using their single sign-on
login after clicking the data link below.
The Quality of Life Index polls a cross-section of Los Angeles County residents each year to understand the public’s perception of the quality of their own lives. Respondents are asked to rate the quality of approximately 40 different aspects of life organized into nine different categories: public safety, education, intergroup relations, cost of living, transportation and traffic, jobs and the economy, health care, the environment, and neighborhoods. Respondents are also asked to rate the salience or importance of each item. Results are calculated into an index figure; the annual figure, as well as the individual rankings, can be compared over time. The index is not simply a mean satisfaction score, but rather a weighted measure that gives greater importance as the respondents rank them.
In addition to the quality of life questions, each survey addresses a small number of additional, timely issues. These have included hunger, homelessness, fears of being deported, gentrification, and other contemporaneous matters.
More detailed resources including mean score tables, ranked mean score tables, top line results, and crosstabs are publicly available through the Quality of Life Index online archive. Raw data is available for users at UCLA.
The final report: https://ucla.app.box.com/s/5hq7trv75z30snqjidfmj2ufd2h6ctpc
PowerPoint Presentation: https://ucla.app.box.com/s/tfj89sh14jqoaj64rmqcc5zpz5y36as2
Questionnaire: https://ucla.app.box.com/s/bqvym4hxev4m87go2d3wtqrqv0kixsmw
AI Just Hit LA’s Building Permit Process — And It Could Change Everything
Jamie Paige May 1, 2025
LOS ANGELES — Silicon Beach is continuing to live up to its name. A groundbreaking artificial intelligence-powered tool aimed at slashing permitting delays for wildfire victims was officially rolled out Wednesday, the result of a determined, private-sector-led effort spearheaded by Steadfast LA and supported by state and local leaders.
“Help for thousands and thousands of people,” said Rick Caruso, founder of Steadfast LA, who has worked for months to bring the software to Los Angeles. “We’re going to get people back in their homes.”
The software, developed by Australian firm Archistar, uses AI to scan building plans for code compliance in a matter of hours, replacing a process that traditionally takes months. It is being provided at no cost to Los Angeles City and County, as well as the cities of Malibu, Altadena, and Pasadena, thanks to a public-private partnership between the state and philanthropic partners including LA Rises and Steadfast LA – with contributions from Autodesk and Amazon.
“Bringing AI into permitting will allow us to rebuild faster and safer, reducing costs and turning a process that can take weeks and months into one that can happen in hours or days,” said Caruso. “Working with our coalition partner Mike Hopkins and Amazon, I’m proud Steadfast LA identified Archistar as the right company to develop and apply this game-changing technology. Now we can work with great philanthropic organizations, including LA Rises, to provide this critical tool at no cost to taxpayers. We will continue bringing forward new technology and ideas to cut through red tape and expedite this recovery.”
Caruso said Steadfast LA first proposed the solution to city and county officials, but encountered resistance.
“We were told over and over again that it couldn’t happen,” Caruso told the Westside Current. “So we took it to the state. They got excited, and it was their involvement that finally brought everyone to the table.”
Governor Gavin Newsom, who joined in the Wednesday announcement, praised the innovation as critical to accelerating post-fire rebuilding.
“The current pace of issuing permits locally is not meeting the magnitude of the challenge we face,” Newsom said. “To help boost local progress, California is partnering with the tech sector and community leaders to give local governments more tools to rebuild faster and more effectively.”
The software uses computer vision, machine learning, and automated rulesets to instantly check designs against local zoning and building codes in the assessment process for building permits. The technology will allow property owners to pre-check their building plans before submission to ensure they submit valid plans. Thus avoiding frustrating delays and expediting the review process once received by city/county staff.
“Bringing AI into permitting will allow us to rebuild faster and safer, reducing costs and turning a process that can take weeks or months into one that can happen in hours or days,” said Caruso. “We identified Archistar as the right company to develop and apply this game-changing technology.”
Mayor Karen Bass has issued an executive directive to support the pilot program and said the rollout will help ensure an expedited recovery for fire survivors.
“Getting residents home quickly and safely is my top priority,” said Mayor Karen Bass. “Last week, I signed an Executive Directive to spearhead an AI pilot program to streamline the permitting process for Palisades residents. With the announcement of this AI solution, we’re infusing new technologies into City Hall processes to ensure nothing stands in the way of families getting home – and to keep our recovery effort on track to be the fastest in modern California history. I thank Governor Newsom and our County partners for their collaboration on this exciting effort.”
Los Angeles County Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Lindsey Horvath also committed to implementation. Barger called the tool a valuable time-saver, while Horvath emphasized the importance of cutting red tape.
While California is now leading on deployment, Archistar’s AI permitting technology was first adopted in the United States by the City of Austin, Texas. In October 2024, Austin entered into a contract with Archistar following a successful three-month pilot. The city had been exploring AI tools since 2019, working with the University of Texas and the International Code Council. The initial rollout focused on single-family homes, with plans to expand to more complex projects.
The technology is already used in more than 25 municipalities across North America and Australia, including Vancouver, Seattle, Houston, Colorado, and British Columbia. It is now also available through a statewide contract that allows any local government in California to quickly adopt the platform.
Caruso said he is pushing for implementation within 30 days.
“It’s easy to have a press conference,” he said. “Now we’re going to hold their feet to the fire.”
While the initial focus is on helping wildfire victims get back into their homes quickly and safely, the long-term goal is to make this AI system a permanent fixture of LA’s permitting process.
Also appearing with the article is an Instagram video from Rick Caruso that has him talking about how the AI program will accelerate the rebuilding process while saving both time and money for those affected: https://www.instagram.com/rickcarusola/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=107b9bd8-36cf-4517-8aa5-bb2e937a3a13
Efforts to remove above-ground utility lies may not result in the removal of unsightly poles. See article regarding undergrounding of lines and the poles that will very likely remain:
https://www.westsidecurrent.com/news/electrical-lines-may-be-buried-but-utility-poles-will-stay-up/article_513b6cfd-e6af-49fd-b141-d4795f2c36da.html?utm_source=westsidecurrent.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter%2Foptimize%2Fweekly-best-of%2F%3F-dc%3D1746284405&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline
Electrical Lines May be Buried, But Utility Poles Will Stay Up
Rachael Gaudiosi Apr 30, 2025 Updated Apr 30, 2025