[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6500490,"mediaKeyId","5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b","parentId",5550383,"title","Council postpones Pacific View Drive vacation to Aug. 12 after residents raise safety and notice concerns","audioSeconds",3065,"startMs",2915000,"endMs",5980000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b&start=2915&end=5980","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b/thumbnail_2915000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6500490/California/Council-postpones-Pacific-View-Drive-vacation-to-Aug-12-after-residents-raise-safety-and-notice-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500490-171df5aab62831847f42139d8615b16e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448605&Signature=of4E0APV4rfA5~bnmd0EG1RF3zy7Ac8sktEJr3B7OQnfl89YQi1WmIy70U-A1r6LEXSuBwakEurqdlAr3b3mPbOUX31IjYdZd67TUAwmhNiEgt5s~4eN9SWf6de~sX98Ion2HAcE~BmWfOPxRxMnw~JmX68KlfcfZNl2g7ApVH~B1CdCtXS-nKgWv5WxVHgobph~H6iHyEgqUDK1DkXEf0l45GTXsmsmBB0Tboz~7JwGjoSCWTf7bUc7Tn6a6TldZRTIcG8E~1m5vf~nAwY4D0d-AS4mxEyArojJj6WgP8q8eOkUIFoty5LJeN34rEpJngjP44q~mDRuNL93SMqh5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Los Angeles City","date","2025-08-06T07:02:03Z","article","Agenda item 2, a request related to a public-right-of-way vacation on or near Pacific View Drive, was the subject of sustained public comment on Aug. 5, 2025. Multiple residents and neighborhood representatives urged the council to reject or delay the request, citing narrow streets, proximity to utility poles and lines, and an alleged lack of required notice to neighbors.

Speakers who identified themselves as Pacific View Drive residents said the proposed vacation would reduce street width and create safety hazards. One commenter said some neighbors had organized and presented petitions opposing the proposal and that required notice under the Brown Act or planning rules had not been provided for an earlier committee hearing. Another speaker who identified as president of Pacific View Drive said the application appeared intended to allow a larger private home to be built on a small lot rather than to create more housing.

Councilmember Brahman asked whether item 2 could be postponed to allow staff and applicants to answer the questions raised by residents. The council announced the item would be continued to Aug. 12, 2025 for further response and review. The chamber tally read into the record at the time of motion/announcement was 14 votes in favor of the procedural action.

Why it matters: The right-of-way vacation would affect a local street’s configuration and potentially private development; residents argued that street safety, utility access and notification procedures required more review.

What’s next: Item 2 was continued to Aug. 12, 2025. Staff and the applicant were directed to respond to resident questions and provide additional information before the council takes final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting SAP - 8/5/25","oneSentenceSummary","Residents opposed a proposed vacation/desocupation of a narrow street (Pacific View Drive), citing safety, lack of notice and utility-pole concerns; council postponed the item to Aug. 12, 2025 to allow staff to respond to questions.","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},6500495,"Cannabis business owners urge council to reject proposed fee increases during public comment",299,2131000,2430000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b&start=2131&end=2430","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b/thumbnail_2131000.jpg","/articles/6500495/California/Cannabis-business-owners-urge-council-to-reject-proposed-fee-increases-during-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500495-3bc672cd6bbba4bda330e8aca601bfb2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448605&Signature=ceWsxO-FL6EQrhEGRQMXqY6j6pwgCzkGErZ0tbYynwNYBTqEen8Zme13c7iRNyCGvW91ezIz-jpTkIkQrHqmh4HyE~yckoYdirgXTsVTsOt4CzzGxrAMz92VLFvHM51hcfPYn4ykuXDU4jHmue~5DJTsutoRWP2WPgOUeGaRKykNFWZa~tMd4TshvFfMsaGyABaitqr2fl8LSA~YeVDX~SSfb-q93kxNYO5laEejxZ6U1WpkfGOpS4z-Edq6Fv1~w6iX2Vi-UYoFGy~svPAMSJN5g8aY3nIQ8Dk6~XG-WR4cbMh0Ss8zwDHYC7mgtKrW6-dVBjWRVYpk0Lm1HCZDCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A sustained public-comment period at the Aug. 5, 2025 Los Angeles City Council meeting featured repeated appeals from cannabis business owners, industry representatives and advocates who asked the council to reject proposed fee increases and to restore or expand direct financial supports for equity applicants.

Stephanie Right, who identified herself at the podium, told the council she has 17 years in the cannabis industry and urged members to reject fee increases and to expand social-equity support. “Es importante que usted rechace el ingreso ... incrementar las tarifas solamente va a dar un salario ... para los empleados de TCR,” she said, criticizing fee increases that she said would burden small operators.

Multiple other speakers, including business owners who said they had just obtained city licenses, described large cumulative fees and surcharges. One speaker who identified only as “Sunshine” said a new set of surcharges and fines could force recently licensed operators to close: “tener que enfrentar 3 30000 dólares en en recargos hace imposible ... voy a tener que cerrar mis negocios si no puedo encontrar un inversionista.” Another speaker representing a business association described competition with an estimated 4,000 illicit dispensaries and urged the council to consider a fee structure modeled on Long Beach and to restore grant support for equity applicants.

Calls from the public included these recurring points: (1) the proposed fee increases would raise operating costs significantly and risk pushing businesses into the illicit market; (2) the city should resume direct grants and prorated reimbursements to licensed social-equity applicants; and (3) the city’s current fee-study and fee-adoption process lacked sufficient public input. Speakers requested a pause on fee increases until the Department of Cannabis Regulation or equivalent agency completes a public fee study and stakeholder outreach.

Why it matters: The cannabis industry told the council that higher local fees could accelerate closures of licensed businesses, reduce city tax receipts over time and strengthen the illicit market — outcomes the speakers said would worsen public-safety and neighborhood impacts.

What’s next: The transcript records extensive public comment on this topic; the public-comment speakers urged the council to reject the fee increases. The transcript does not record a final council vote on fee changes during this meeting; any formal council action would appear in a later agenda item or committee report.","During an extended public-comment period, multiple cannabis business owners and industry representatives urged the council to reject proposed fee increases, saying the costs would push legal businesses out of the market and advantage the illicit market.",{"_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},6500499,"Council reports closed-session settlement recommendations, votes to approve several payouts",90,1500000,1590000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b&start=1500&end=1590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b/thumbnail_1500000.jpg","/articles/6500499/California/Council-reports-closed-session-settlement-recommendations-votes-to-approve-several-payouts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500499-700af65d9ab328d7cf3d2498c9ea6194/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448605&Signature=aYYGQv3ivQt0tHcSZ40cSIgK-D6BSyVscMdTptjvMloFjX9e765g5KAOzW-hQ7B7YZ9e49OLfIjeEawFzYGZweTcP0Q-twWEWEzM9Md9wg3uHYg4c1UhIOdVojGQuuepkiJBwevUXCIgDKDoPq50HqDIv1C9KtBfpbSHQQhiQFb2n9iSlHjuCLJ7oZU4fg2CPSj15zyyigr07CvXXZqBG1e~Kb8uWT50H~cpZMay9sCAdWgNGdIakhzVXRwP3Zt~e4gp5akj2vLP7VtPM5Pfk1pjY~sBFQ4dRwkKSzxDX959e8xF5G4m8xtOJ0RpPjTOb7KYG9blR6fn4xcYUcr7kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Aug. 5, 2025 Los Angeles City Council meeting, councilmembers reported the results of a closed-session review of pending litigation and recommended settlement payments in several cases. The council announced and voted to approve the recommendations in open session; the tally announced in the chamber was 14 votes in favor.

Councilmember Yersovsky reported the closed-session recommendations. As stated in open session, the city recommended settlement agreements or payments in several matters: Susan Greene v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment up to $200,000; Karina Álvarez v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment $200,000; Karla Castes v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment $200,000 (agenda reference reported as 32); Leslie García v. Fernando Muñoz — transcript listed a recommendation of $100,000,000 for settlement (amount as stated in the report); Marc Allen Closs v. City of Los Angeles — recommendation was to reject the proposed settlement; Susy Mamsi et al. v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment $400,000; Roberto Vargas v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment up to $300,000; Bernardino López Escobar v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment $200,000; Víctor Vraginés v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment $150,000; Herk Rentals v. City of Los Angeles — recommended payment $86,000 (all amounts as reported into the record).

Yersovsky presented the list to the full council, which then voted on the committee recommendations. The councilarian tally announced after the vote was 14 in favor. The transcript does not include roll-call vote-by-name in the public portion; it reports the committee’s recommendations and the chamber’s announced tally.

Why it matters: Approval of closed-session settlement recommendations authorizes the city to resolve litigation and allocate funds from the city’s settlement or operating budgets as appropriate. Specific payments and motions reported here are those the council announced into the public record after closed-session deliberations.

What’s next: The recommended settlements will proceed according to city administrative procedures for payment and any necessary reporting; motions that were recommended to be rejected remain not settled per the closed-session report.","After closed session, councilmembers reported recommended settlement amounts in multiple cases and the full council approved the recommendations in open session, with amounts cited during the report.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6500504,"Council advances South Park affordable-housing plan; staff outlines costs, Olympics coordination",620,850000,1470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b&start=850&end=1470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5550383-6ed5dd4e9c2f2958f066566e28d8b30b/thumbnail_850000.jpg","/articles/6500504/California/Council-advances-South-Park-affordable-housing-plan-staff-outlines-costs-Olympics-coordination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500504-aba19e6a1287aa961fcfac641651935c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448605&Signature=Dl~CYQtt~C2uRktVD4Kx5A1XWlL88Qxe7RQjJCbD575xUYRqDs1D~UldeiC~vPoZnVhm76CoyyoCqGy7IUoIlEJhVf48xE6DpIyXhrLx~dPXNwJwJJQnBdZDIj4Wc1vl4zFIm9P9NYSH~6IiFAP4Zb~g2COShmW2L1RlaRbgqOYyTRNelWyfU20QVQfmdCkrL9un~u5PSzP8fjm4f6B5TUBIS1GYZsoU0Uol9rYdU5BDAjKzEcjlvECnQ4T4ahuF4iiqKuw8gOMRmJ84IWTChPcB6EaLL959CkLbdZOE9hTE2UeMSeQ3wV1ks1uriGzmL1MZasV4Sxkt-~u0vQytIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On Aug. 5, 2025, the Los Angeles City Council voted to advance agenda item 0.17, a proposed affordable-housing project in the South Park neighborhood (District 15). The motion passed with 14 votes in favor, after councilmembers heard project cost updates and scheduling questions from staff.

Councilmember Bloometh Hernández Jurado opened discussion in support of the project, saying it would bring new affordable housing to South Park and “cumplir con las exigencias urgentes de viviendas asequibles.” She urged the council to continue moving the plan forward and thanked the Department of City Planning and local leaders for their work.

Gary Moore, introduced as a consultant with the Office of the CEO and part of the project executive team, told the council the city has spent tens of millions so far. “En este momento hemos gastado 45000000 de dólares ... 54000000, pero hay unos veintipico adicionales. No sé si esto se suma o al 54. No, eso es la cifra acumulada de lo que hemos gastado,” Moore said, describing the figure as the accumulated amount that includes early-construction agreements and an exclusive negotiation agreement. He also said the project would require issuing debt if the council proceeds to construction, and referred to “alrededor de 100000000 de dólares” when discussing related costs and financing.

Moore further told the council the project team and the CEO’s office plan to publish final recommendations by the end of the month and return to the council after committee review. He said staff would convene a three-hour workshop next Thursday with the Department of Water and Power and the project engineering team to address electrical and technical issues raised by council members and stakeholders: “el jueves que viene vamos a organizar un taller de 3 horas con el ... departamento de de agua y luz y ... la junta de ingenieros.”

Council discussion recorded no changes to the scope in open session. The council then voted to approve the item as presented; a roll-call showing individual member votes was not read into the public transcript, but the tally announced in the chamber was 14 votes in favor.

Why it matters: Council approval advances a major housing project in a central Los Angeles neighborhood and sets a path to issue project debt, finalize engineering, and coordinate use or partial availability of the facility with the Olympics committee should schedule conflicts arise during construction.

What’s next: Staff will publish a final recommendation document later this month, present to the relevant committee for additional review, and return to the full council with next steps and any recommended approvals for issuance of debt and construction contracts.","The Los Angeles City Council approved item 0.17 to advance an affordable-housing project in South Park, with councilmembers hearing staff estimates of amounts spent to date, a possible debt issuance, and the need to coordinate with the Olympics committee and the Department of Water and Power.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council postpones Pacific View Drive vacation to Aug. 12 after residents raise safety and notice concerns

Cannabis business owners urge council to reject proposed fee increases during public comment

Council reports closed-session settlement recommendations, votes to approve several payouts

Council advances South Park affordable-housing plan; staff outlines costs, Olympics coordination