[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6532409,"mediaKeyId","5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4","parentId",5509281,"title","Votes at a glance: Council adopts multiple items, approves closed-session settlements","audioSeconds",3458,"startMs",2307000,"endMs",5765000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4&start=2307&end=5765","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4/thumbnail_2307000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6532409/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Council-adopts-multiple-items-approves-closed-session-settlements","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532409-bf7bf12a34554fcaaa404b21201bfcb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976622&Signature=RbwVH75pJllYZVrOij2uAa3brx~duJulOlGY6BUdx0SZqd9pTk6SNYDmUmVPW3XUUH7lVzle~OClePauZ1qItSim1txifpCZk9WT1Kqu4t7jpjy-icg83B0c5hBYDiXm6AojlmdlVgWHtnJ84LVV~Jc~jkOriQTqPXbh0ZSVjhSafFwQ-s8jlYKYjr3mSL81RqeCAjIN0dsfSCgy1USWuIIvTOacJk-brJi~rRiDHQx77uqnHKumNpqjNU8OjxLoq12QpygBzSM8sN0xhFgkafz96guwdKd7uJJIxtHAcFA76lxQaA2q0Hhxizo7LLCpK5q4uf9Zm6Ie0TNtg~HFrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Los Angeles City","date","2025-07-30T18:44:18.093Z","article","The Los Angeles City Council on July 30 handled a broad set of consent and regular-agenda actions. Key final outcomes reported during the meeting included:

- Item 7 (Adopt report of Arts, Parks and Community Enrichment committee): Approved, 13 in favor (vote recorded in transcript).

- Item 11 (Adopt Budget and Finance Committee report): Approved, 13 in favor.

- Item 20 (separate vote called by Councilmember Lee): Approved, 11 in favor, 2 opposed (see separate coverage).

- Item 28 (Resolution relating to convenio 20A, modification 28A introduced): Modification 28A was adopted and item 28 was approved as modified, recorded vote 14 in favor, 0 opposed.

- Item 32 (Ghost kitchens study request): Approved, 13 in favor (see separate coverage).

- Items 71–81 (closed-session matters considered by Budget and Finance committee): The council approved recommendations to settle or expend funds on several legal matters and claims; the transcript records a 13-in-favor vote when the closed-session items were called. The items included recommended payments or authorizations with amounts cited by staff during the committee report as follows (amounts reported in the committee report read into the record): up to $408,000 (item 71); up to $125,000 plus accrued interest (item 73); up to $1,265,000 plus accrued interest (item 74); up to $395,000 plus accrued interest (item 75); up to $894,300 plus accrued interest (item 76); up to $1,750,000 (item 77); up to $950,000 (item 78); up to $500,000 (item 79); up to $382,000 (item 80, transcript references $382,000 and $500,000 in the same passage — amounts reported by committee were $382,000 for one matter and $500,000 for another); and up to $375,000 (item 81).

- Item 5 (modification 5A): The clerk recorded a vote of 3 in favor when the item was called with the modification; the transcript indicates the modification was published and adopted as introduced (the low vote count was recorded in the transcript at the time the clerk announced the vote).

Several other items were continued or paused for later agendas: item 35 was continued to Aug. 1, 2025; items 54 and 56 were continued two weeks to Aug. 13, 2025; items 65 and 70 were continued to Aug. 6, 2025; and item 9 was paused for further questions and follow-up with the City Attorney’s office.

The meeting also included a long public-comment period with a wide range of topics raised by speakers. The council closed the hearing and proceeded to final motions and recognitions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting SAP - 7/30/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Los Angeles City Council adopted multiple consent and regular-agenda items on July 30 and recorded several financial recommendations from closed-session matters during a meeting that included prolonged public comment.","taxTitle","Spanish, Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",80599,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6532414,"Council asks staff for report on \"ghost kitchens\" after neighbors cite traffic and safety problems",178,2604000,2782000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4&start=2604&end=2782","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4/thumbnail_2604000.jpg","/articles/6532414/California/Council-asks-staff-for-report-on-ghost-kitchens-after-neighbors-cite-traffic-and-safety-problems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532414-ae7461154cc3204eec3bfb9b6fad6feb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976621&Signature=TZXqZEfYMAyJ-hPUP6aVKREmZ5g0TeF-eqMtZ5bV-eg-mYnJbq7j8GfOo8aA~oLX2vndFEL7Tqu-USEv1tgJPA8eOCShIEs1krqtXInAL2OgRxMUxztZKjKLCBrqvxOtJiqNKL1xeuDSUiI7AgNe8OzxuuETpQPAbd~QHG0pMO8oOa8qwTWD53ngGsmxE~AKL-AkoHOlpVjoicfYbw6cVEcmebs5U2T-dDMgAuAD7XQm~wzZZNV1aQSayFRjkYJQ9R-~f20diINqVXdgX7eFTpEN0Xd8m0nL7q5v3Z-gH04-ncUfE-AIPSJ7v6ugD8sW6owxkCRsVKInZHnK4eWLVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council on July 30 approved a request for a city staff report to study the impact of delivery-only or \"ghost\" kitchens on neighborhood traffic, safety and business operations. The motion, introduced by Councilmember Soto Martínez, passed without recorded opposition, 13 to 0.

\"In my district we are seeing ghost kitchens in places not equipped to handle hundreds of vehicles entering and queuing, leaving neighbors with congestion and unsafe driving conditions,\" Councilmember Soto Martínez told colleagues when calling item 32 for a separate vote. \"This report will look at what technologies or approaches the city can use to create a buffer so that people may wait a few blocks away and not cause so much traffic, balancing small businesses and neighborhoods.\"

Soto Martínez described the request as an information report to evaluate options rather than a regulatory change. The council opened the public list for the item and then recorded the vote; the transcript records the final tally as 13 in favor.

Supporters said the study aims to preserve local small businesses that use delivery models while addressing residents’ quality-of-life concerns. The transcript contains no specific regulatory language or required deadlines for the study; councilmembers indicated an intent to work with colleagues to find a balanced approach.

The item was heard during the council’s regular agenda and was not amended on the floor. The council did not specify an exact timeline for the staff report during the July 30 meeting.","The Los Angeles City Council unanimously requested a city report on 'ghost kitchens' and how delivery operations affect neighborhoods, approving item 32 by voice vote 13-0. Councilmember Soto Martínez described complaints about traffic and safety where delivery-only kitchens operate in areas not designed for heavy vehicle queuing.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6532419,"Council approves new crosswalk allocation methodology; two members dissent over school crossing-guard impacts",199,2465000,2664000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4&start=2465&end=2664","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509281-fac077d1e41b58a50c38dd85ca87cec4/thumbnail_2465000.jpg","/articles/6532419/California/Council-approves-new-crosswalk-allocation-methodology-two-members-dissent-over-school-crossing-guard-impacts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6532419-855e026dcb323bfb23f3e877323456ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1770976621&Signature=FHcbSkPpTEnVowJhEOkeLZzDIcAcH~f315vXcnOFMI4kt6usOEevptG3nBWV4BGSTFke4ibbj512X8V1SXYLsOqmRW8vmsj-YK~HEsXcdZ4IvZdGDb7z97e7UAW~W1X9oCFcNUiceMdjQgBGw1zoqYIg2~C7SsMtaB~G8JD~K9OUZf13jC1yAQq7lL2~K8IMJZ8BoUeKfYeATJQ8x753MG4GCr4oBed3vN6f1w1CMw1V~ePRRHQBbPP-e-oAD7lbWNQ-GjkINWOJdvnFM0C3nzekgzdpLQt5pAuvW302uR-WHoXfiAuFHEFc9l4IrgFLCON1uOhl-kBgsUBNXKUk4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council on July 30 approved a new methodology for allocating crosswalks and related resources, voting 11 in favor and 2 opposed.

Councilmember Lee called item 20 for a separate vote, saying he lacked information about how the methodology would affect different districts and that the change was scheduled to begin in the fall of 2025. “I’m calling item number 20 for a separate vote because I don’t really know what the impact will be to the different districts,” Lee said. “Until I can see the effects of this, I will have to vote no.”

Councilmember Park also spoke against the proposal, saying that without a clear list of which schools would lose crossing-guard coverage she could not support it. “Our crossing guard program is beloved by parents and needed by students,” Park said. She added that using a new methodology to reassign existing crossing guards — rather than adding new posts — raises concerns about removing longstanding services from local schools.

The measure was approved 11-2. Councilmembers Lee and Park recorded their opposition on the floor. According to remarks on the dais, the methodology is slated to take effect in time for the fall 2025 school term, a timetable that helped shape the objections. The text of the item as discussed in the meeting did not list the specific schools that would be affected; members seeking that district-level information asked staff for follow-up analysis before implementation.

Councilmembers who supported the measure said the new methodology is intended to standardize how crosswalks and related staffing are allocated across the city, but the transcript does not contain a detailed explanation of the technical formula or the specific reassignments that will result.

The vote occurred as part of the meeting’s consent and regular agenda procedures; the council opened and closed the public comment list for the item before recording the tally. No formal amendment to item 20 was adopted during the July 30 session.

Because council members requested additional district-level impact information, staff follow-up was discussed during the hearing but no specific deadline for that analysis was recorded in the meeting transcript.","The Los Angeles City Council voted 11-2 July 30 to approve item 20, a new methodology for allocating crosswalks and related resources. Councilmembers Lee and Park said they would oppose the measure until they can see district-level effects on school crossing-guard assignments and the start date in fall 2025.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Council adopts multiple items, approves closed-session settlements

Council asks staff for report on "ghost kitchens" after neighbors cite traffic and safety problems

Council approves new crosswalk allocation methodology; two members dissent over school crossing-guard impacts