[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-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",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6503531,"mediaKeyId","5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381","parentId",5550365,"title","Council approves multiple consent items and closed-session settlements; items continued as noted","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",5972000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381&start=5972&end=5972","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381/thumbnail_5972000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6503531/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-approves-multiple-consent-items-and-closed-session-settlements-items-continued-as-noted","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503531-8ebf821e494efea04f42e7212f37b6d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157514&Signature=ejWnW05hI9~rtBcp8Vd~lAJ-BSj9g5ScDELy0FaP56Ay6gyucMZZFEuyw4ubltZUEnjpGIxuahieId1UeF0H4xhYHSvWcsIKMGpMy5BlTAUcUt-33RQptyAGi-7ieBHbkfTP3PojD7CNRmhxwGHfvUvFdpj6FzWPZuRuQC7wIO879ttL16IsYoA-0s2zxB1b8GsrDcaaXbEciwjWYSNaFxjIhccnBV7nykeP50yJi8iMrENaFsX1eqgTDVfeBexdmrM-kd6SjxRCJXexkhLfnG1vh3gJv5TY5a4Pt6pNPGIgVe52i5DJPrTHyOFWPSIwKWtdPjYrnggmtZFb4Y-cEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Los Angeles City","date","2025-08-05T19:09:22Z","article","The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday took roll-call votes on a number of consent and committee items and acted on recommendations from closed session.

Routine and consent items: After public comment, the council voted on a package of items that included items 1 and 3 through 13 and items 19 through 29; the clerk recorded 14 ayes on that roll-call vote.

Individual items called earlier: The council had earlier opened the roll on items 14, 16 and 18 and recorded the votes (the clerk announced 12 ayes on an early tally for that set). Item 15 had been called for questions and later was considered; the council recorded 14 ayes when it voted on that item. Item 17 (a major downtown project) was considered with council approval recorded 14 ayes.

Closed-session settlements: The council reported the following recommendations into the public record and approved them by roll call (14 ayes): expend up to $200,000 in the case of Suzanne Green v. City of Los Angeles; expend up to $2,000,000 in Cynthia Corina Alvarez v. City of Los Angeles; expend up to $1,100,000 in Carl Augustus v. City of Los Angeles; expend up to $850,000 in Leslie Garcia et al v. Fernando Ayala Munoz et al; reject the proposed settlement in Mark Ellen Clark v. City of Los Angeles; expend up to $400,000 in Susie Momsy et al v. City of Los Angeles et al; expend up to $300,000 in Roberto Vargas v. City of Los Angeles et al; expend up to $200,000 in Bernardino Lopez Escobar v. City of Los Angeles; expend up to $150,000 in Victor Regnitz v. City of Los Angeles et al; and expend up to $86,824.74 in Rentals Incorporated v. City of Los Angeles.

Other procedural actions: The council continued item 2 (a street/easement vacation on Pacific View Drive) to Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025 at the request of Councilmember Raman in order to address questions raised in public comment. The desk and motions were cleared and routine referrals were posted and referred as usual.

Votes recorded at each roll call are those announced by the clerk on the record during Tuesday’s session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Regular City Council - 8/5/25","oneSentenceSummary","The council recorded roll-call votes approving a package of routine agenda items and several closed-session settlement recommendations; the council also continued one land-use item to Aug. 12.","taxTitle","Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4025,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6503535,"Neighbors oppose Pacific View Drive vacation; council continues item for one week",869,2969000,3838000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381&start=2969&end=3838","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381/thumbnail_2969000.jpg","/articles/6503535/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Neighbors-oppose-Pacific-View-Drive-vacation-council-continues-item-for-one-week","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503535-06879e35e6c9d3fb4508c96119c3ed29/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157514&Signature=VQpSiLrxVK7puGTnjseFve2g0GYla~qDOnYphOlTUSXl5mmtE4ggOWNcu~InXE2pAeLPQS77nZqrmTfDAqQrXy0VS1pRGxkTGwj~3Ti9OUdHm-lwEegdnwwAXqeB5cst40FErCQU9-okthy9-iKGthYPtSyFXVlf3y3e6C6D6VEwMdYdlH6phFMIuW0ht0nw~yhbFezGeQxeZw6iHtlgE4osVMSKYE8MAYvvDQc0wbhDLGO8a5wzbvPemZ5d0Hr0AxbjGUCX4AJxy2KYuX1XN~wjExdpD2jog9mEmChPV4faaVAOP~Og1QA1rj9Y72C-qtXvCZAwztLEKGascLhQ-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Neighbors near Pacific View Drive urged the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday to reject a proposed vacation of an easement that opponents said supports utilities and a narrow, winding hillside street.

Multiple residents said they were not properly notified of earlier hearings and that the application contains inaccuracies. Carrie Rudolph, a Pacific View Drive resident, said the applicant’s environmental assessment answered “no” for many questions that should have been answered “yes,” and that the vacation would remove a long-standing easement that helps serve utilities on the hillside. “The city is being asked to give up an easement that has maintained for a century, which supports our neighborhood solely so that the owner can raise the value of his property and enrich himself,” Rudolph said.

Other neighbors echoed concerns about losing the easement and the practical difficulty of relocating a utility pole and existing services. Charles Alvarez told the council the pole in question carries power, telephone, cable and internet lines and that “there’s very little space or room available for an alternate location.” Art Sawyer, a 28-year resident, said the vacation would “sacrifice a critical street and hillside buffer for the benefit of a single landowner.”

The applicant’s representative, Mandy Rafferty, and project representative Gary Hunt defended the application. Rafferty said the 16–18 month approval process involved reviews by multiple bureaus and that the vacation area does not include the 40-foot right-of-way or utilities. Hunt said the project would provide a 40-foot easement and ultimately widen the pavement and that no utilities would be moved.

Councilmember Raman asked for a one-week continuance to allow additional follow-up; she requested the continuance for further review of the questions raised during public comment. The council continued the item to Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, without objection.

The vacation request also touches on the city’s hillside rules: opponents urged the council to enforce the Mulholland/hillside standards and to return the matter to committee for additional review; the applicant said the project would still have to meet hillside and other review processes.

Councilmembers did not make a final determination on the vacation on Tuesday; instead they postponed further action to allow staff and council offices to address the neighborhood’s concerns and to ensure required notifications and reviews were complete.","Residents objected to a proposed vacation of an easement on Pacific View Drive, citing utilities, the hillside ordinance and inadequate notice; the applicant defended the project and the council continued the item to Aug. 12 for further review.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6503540,"Business owners urge council to reject proposed cannabis fee increases; council accepts public comment",2132,1844000,3976000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381&start=1844&end=3976","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381/thumbnail_1844000.jpg","/articles/6503540/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Business-owners-urge-council-to-reject-proposed-cannabis-fee-increases-council-accepts-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503540-222d8db54a8248061a3d8bb1dd62f812/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157514&Signature=hddaVqQGtYnMhKZ06CLyGD~ZaQ07DEIYjA1l6651RkjwZ-OboEmwlcw7HW-2oW3RYz9g7YmDtYVsMsjvfzJyvkO~DuyACdGDYlE0CoE8DsJqnaTp7xvmP7AziQSB2IqJdqeo~LpjK~uzmfWp-dGf~Yj2wDq4qXeEk~UsEMujMFsrAc0V5DPakQ9Jz2m~9aaeCmN9pS2uPToXBZ5uO~iiYleDFic4CKCsBI4PFRvG1pOvhTIHjOnwab8ly9BLmrlsLoJsL6Plbffq3h9-h8zRihmWu4pLssS39k1K7eHlhARXPI2RkwdtCFGnufFPkajbc8tVT2jMrVzQRzTH5bIaSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dozens of business owners and social equity licensees told the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday that proposed fee increases from the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) would threaten already fragile licensed cannabis businesses and favor illicit operators.

Speakers during the public comment period described a range of operational problems they said made the fee increase untimely. Tiffany Wright, who identified herself as a 17-year cannabis industry veteran, urged the council to “reject this increase” and called on the city to provide relief for social equity applicants, saying DCR charges more than the state and that social equity licensees have been “indebted and vampirized by a DCR that does the exact same job that the state department of cannabis control does and then charges us exponentially more.”

Owners described specific fee and administration burdens they said were harmful. One speaker said the city required a $4,000 renewal fee and an $8,000 annual application fee in 2025; another said DCR charged more than $500 to file a simple DBA; others described lengthy delays in disbursements tied to social equity funding, including a reported 10-month wait for pro rata disbursement. Daniel Sosa, who said he owns four dispensaries in the city, told the council many licensed storefronts are more than $1 million in debt and that the licensed market competes with an illicit market that pays no taxes.

Advocates and industry groups urged several policy responses: reject the current fee proposal until an independent third-party fee study with public input can be completed; increase enforcement against illegal operators; adopt tiered fee or tax structures modeled on other California cities; and provide direct financial relief or grants to social equity licensees.

Speakers included representatives of the United Cannabis Business Association and social equity owners who said cumulative city and state fees and taxes are driving businesses to close. “We cannot afford higher fees in such a hostile business environment,” Daniel Sosa said during public comment.

The council took public comment on item 13 as part of its broader public-comment period. After public comment concluded, the council voted on a slate of items (items 1, 3–13 and 19–29) by roll call, recording 14 ayes on the package that included item 13.

Multiple speakers asked the council to delay or reject the department’s fee increase and to pursue an independent study; some requested specific relief and a tiered structure to support small and social equity operators. Councilmembers did not immediately announce a change in direction on item 13 during Tuesday’s meeting beyond allowing public comment and including it in the roll-call package.","Dozens of speakers — including social equity licensees and small business owners — urged the council to reject fee increases from the Department of Cannabis Regulation and to pursue independent study and targeted relief; the council took public comment and later approved a package of routine agenda items that included item 13.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_46":104,"_48":105,"_50":106,"_52":107,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":108,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":109,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6503545,"Council hears timeline, costs and Olympic planning for downtown development project",526,560000,1086000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381&start=560&end=1086","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550365-346f40a3281b6e3cb6114a8786f56381/thumbnail_560000.jpg","/articles/6503545/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-hears-timeline-costs-and-Olympic-planning-for-downtown-development-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6503545-d0b576e40fb404028c9126ecbdda173d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157514&Signature=VfQhg7-VlktYbfIu5RncizEw0J~-Mw0yySfSyFXeKqYTfOreif6m-jzOzhXSZ9bF9uwewxdx7NahyT3pm46hkPFIj9-b0l2zeH-pGEoiHx43LZ2HNmeuBaDESUXRXJp0Hwvhyxu2-aGqS42V1P1vZGbobjIZxAmbYW4MRuujk11b6tEn3rDgBLanhuFizw9ffPynGwZLsd2LoVIsBkkOqyEEXcl3Nr01M1EN3QZKMekvJ5qmTdvlol1dBEzo5f8VB3d2c-28ze3ICqEcMR9EnSh0Wxj1pdJgnpwqPMD-F3dx116Dwc~iE7SVEfhmPZ7QuYqW-0-QmdeuHJ6Hx1WBtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday heard detailed questions about the costs, schedule and Olympic-readiness of a major downtown development project as staff briefed members before a vote on related approvals.

Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson (council president) opened consideration of the item after members called it for comment; Councilmember Marqueece Jurado said the project “brings new homes to South Park” and highlighted public benefits directed in part to the CD14 Public Benefits Trust Fund. Jurado said the benefits could include affordable housing, small business support, public safety strategies and arts investments.

Councilmembers pressed city financial staff and consultants on costs and timelines. “So at this point, we spent about 54, $54,000,000,” a CAO staff member told the council when asked how much the city has already expended under early-works and negotiating agreements. Gary Lee Moore, identified in the meeting as a consultant to the CAO’s office and project executive, said value-engineering work identified roughly $124,000,000 in reductions compared with an earlier February estimate of about $1,700,000,000.

City staff described continuing work to align the project schedule with LA28, the organizer of the 2028 Olympic Games. Staff said the city and LA28 are still negotiating the needs LA28 will have for parts of the building and that construction sequencing may require pausing work to allow LA28 to use the facility for the Games and then resume post-Games completion.

“Once we start construction, there are gonna be changes to the building,” a CAO staff member said, adding the goal is to make the building “Olympics ready” so construction can pause for the Games and then be finalized afterwards. The CAO’s office told the council that if the council moves forward it would likely issue debt for the project’s full cost.

Council members also raised utility and power questions. Staff said the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has flagged concerns about electrical service upgrades and relocations; the city planned a three-hour technical workshop with LADWP leadership, the Bureau of Engineering and the developer to review requirements and contingency plans for relocations.

On schedule, staff described a truncated timeline: commercial close (when the project agreement would be signed) was discussed as a mid-September milestone in earlier planning, and staff said they had just received a committed proposal and were reviewing it. The CAO’s office said it expects to submit a final recommendation to council at the end of the month, to then proceed through committee and council consideration.

Council members voted to approve the item as presented; the roll call on this agenda item showed 14 ayes.

The Council’s questions focused on cost containment, contingency plans if utility relocations cannot be completed before the Games, and whether the alterations identified in value engineering would affect LA28’s preexisting space needs. Staff said they will include those considerations in the final recommendation to council.

The council’s action moves the project closer to commercial close and authorizes staff to continue negotiations and finalize recommendations for the council’s later votes.","Councilmembers pressed city staff about costs, schedule and coordination with LA28 for a downtown development project; staff said $54 million has been spent to date, value engineering trimmed about $124 million from an earlier $1.7 billion estimate, and a final CAO recommendation is expected by month-end.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves multiple consent items and closed-session settlements; items continued as noted

Neighbors oppose Pacific View Drive vacation; council continues item for one week

Business owners urge council to reject proposed cannabis fee increases; council accepts public comment

Council hears timeline, costs and Olympic planning for downtown development project