[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6504670,"mediaKeyId","5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c","parentId",5566381,"title","Residents accuse Councilwoman Imelda Padilla of poor transparency during City Council public comment","audioSeconds",248,"startMs",3155000,"endMs",3403000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c&start=3155&end=3403","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c/thumbnail_3155000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6504670/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Residents-accuse-Councilwoman-Imelda-Padilla-of-poor-transparency-during-City-Council-public-comment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504670-374fd83f7ac0d2694e12c2f49f1d2d05/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169292&Signature=HDe4uMG~cM9-uZZQTCqnKwUCfl1MBl15fHijirIW6hMLMohSPkVYmbPLG5p8AuuO7e70BlyLCkjajNDRhyup9tYvGqkBYU7beAi1sQewxqpQKRVBd2JX5Wc7f2tr8ztY4uhfVb7nwaqjzNAUYGxprIOW~HnF6PwsaLwHK2-U2fS7XGbxZHN5mW8K57VPnvVxGApf2oCVGqMlKptjHXWjkYy-ayRTGvrIM6x0xWOrqCym1TGwWL7h45w4BZfhkom5SXr4uQDyVPbfgVBUUKCvxLaA2lah55X9WGTHqb7UXsdqZhA~9YpxG3PV1B6ILANtPr3k4n6DhqA6ZMbdCx3mAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Los Angeles City","date","2025-08-12T18:35:04.653Z","article","LOS ANGELES — Dozens of public commenters at the Los Angeles City Council meeting Tuesday criticized Councilwoman Imelda Padilla and called for greater transparency and accountability, with speakers alleging that Padilla dismissed constituents and that a recent town-hall process violated open-meeting norms.

Multiple speakers said Padilla had “called us liars” and that residents were denied meaningful opportunity to influence decisions at a district town-hall. Nancy Flores, one of the speakers who identified herself during the meeting, said Padilla’s conduct reflected “poor transparency, questionable decision making, and lack of accountability.” Flores said residents “deserve leaderships who listen” and urged the council to demand higher standards.

Other speakers echoed those concerns, saying that the town-hall format had limited public input and that some comments were mischaracterized or met with retaliatory remarks. One commenter urged an independent investigation, saying the meeting was “a sham and a blatant violation of the Brown Act” and that the conduct could have legal consequences under state open-meeting laws.

Why it matters: Public comment is a key mechanism for Angelenos to raise issues directly to the council. Repeated allegations by residents that a council member’s actions curtailed meaningful participation amplify calls for ethical review or procedural remedies.

Council response and context: The meeting record shows numerous citizens raised the Padilla-related concerns during the public-comment portion of the agenda; council action on those comments was limited to the public record. Several callers asked the council or staff to pursue independent review; the transcript includes references to the Brown Act and to requests for further investigation, but no formal referral or motion by councilmembers to open an investigation was recorded during the meeting.

Ending: Public commenters said they will continue to press for transparency and will return to future meetings until they see changes. The clerk’s file will reflect the remarks made during the Aug. 12 public-comment period.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Regular City Council - 8/12/25","oneSentenceSummary","Multiple speakers used public comment at the Aug. 12 council meeting to criticize Councilwoman Imelda Padilla, alleging lack of transparency, retaliation and violations of open-meeting rules; commenters asked the council to investigate and demanded greater accountability.","taxTitle","Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4025,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6504675,"Council corrects street-lighting district ordinance year to fiscal 2025–26 and approves amendment",120,6354000,6474000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c&start=6354&end=6474","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c/thumbnail_6354000.jpg","/articles/6504675/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-corrects-street-lighting-district-ordinance-year-to-fiscal-202526-and-approves-amendment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504675-f75f94758fe55f24f9a8adff3edd8b35/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169292&Signature=oXSmZ2OhjGiiYq4HgzjS-WRO-4Mp7-F~jQomE9vwwdUmBumHrxXZezrEFmlBcyiTeQh532tvQfPud-me0OEa4K4hI9eD9Mp5V8OVXeu82SlF0Lwzx44~bQj9o-vT02mWQWRnLVqxZ3yZtqfxwpEMaLfa-17mK0bMJnK95gBgE3OVxOGIUF81H7SU-b9SvPVrwSIMvKRkkW3HZ5kBePqh0k43XSkiMn6ob9D-PwALD10wpSuwZsMytnuqFyjTAFtv9s3-9gk05EtcUE0o3r2jnbKHCNm4UFW12oXECIQlvsGtADWmKTN9-XYeD0yWKnJzH7ve~lhSV1hpC6dfW24RDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council approved a technical amendment Aug. 12 to correct the fiscal-year reference in an ordinance governing a street-lighting maintenance district.

Councilmember David Ryu Nazarian (recorded on the transcript as “Nazarian”) moved to amend the recommendation to reflect that the maintenance of the street-lighting district is for fiscal year 25–26. Nazarian said the previous language contained an incorrect year. The motion was seconded and the council voted 14–0 to adopt the amendment and approve the item as amended.

Why it matters: The change is a clerical correction to the ordinance language that establishes maintenance responsibility and the fiscal-year reference for the district; it ensures the ordinance aligns with the intended fiscal year for budgeting and administration.

The motion replaced the year referenced in the ordinance with fiscal year 25–26. The record shows the amendment was moved, seconded and adopted without further debate.

Ending: The council directed the city attorney to revise the ordinance text to reflect the corrected fiscal year; the amended ordinance will be filed with the clerk and implemented in the city’s budgetary and maintenance schedules for the street-lighting district.","Councilmember Nazarian moved to amend the motion on item 70 to correct the fiscal year for street lighting district maintenance to fiscal year 25–26; the council adopted the amendment and the item, 14–0.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6504680,"Council affirms conditions on street vacation request; utilities to remain undisturbed, applicant given two years",155,6256000,6411000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c&start=6256&end=6411","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c/thumbnail_6256000.jpg","/articles/6504680/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-affirms-conditions-on-street-vacation-request-utilities-to-remain-undisturbed-applicant-given-two-years","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504680-1d37a4b7a96f6c842dac8bdfc2fb65e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169292&Signature=B0URq4CEW80Mk7ZdlBIGsCPGlKxxd8eEfs9fM~20b1V1FVWA14oeadf8XUV0ZdTSLamBeTKSwRiPx6fxNrgl3MX3WdkLQ7szNbnQSWOBsQl1OHKB32QT0cHXcTTuImLTA9JtMTydYkcUxG9ryoepNPuteRIUPpR5YXG-Ib0OeW16asyiudI-PD1V2ykTR2VdiQKOjbuQ7b1qYOUAASU~bsp1OfvmxlG2rjR5Mkj0xiv7gAHWkGqp03DxcvkWDFOi9rhaOZ9MF-QhWeQko~yDc2iCh5WsdR5hnySIibmAno1SY~jtGyibKrOBBjIzrmHyaPSFb2q2JtJP09~npM0X8w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council on Aug. 12 approved a street vacation request after council offices and the Bureau of Engineering clarified that telecommunications and utility easements would not be disturbed by the vacation.

Councilmember Nithya Raman said the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) report includes a standard condition requiring the applicant to make arrangements with franchise and utility agencies if facilities need to be removed. Raman told the council the utilities in question were actually outside the area to be vacated and that condition language protects access and infrastructure.

Why it matters: Street vacations can change vehicular and utility access and can affect neighbors’ access and service lines. The council’s restatement of the BOE condition preserves utility agency rights and provides a two-year period for the applicant to meet conditions before vacation proceedings would terminate.

Raman said that condition 8 in the BOE report “specifically states that arrangements must be made between the applicant and all franchises and utilities agencies for the removal of affected facilities if they need to” and that the language is standard. She added that if the applicant cannot execute the conditions within two years, the vacation proceedings may be terminated.

An applicant representative later addressed the council and thanked members and neighbors for the process and said they hoped the matter could move forward after months of review.

The council voted 14-0 to adopt the item after members confirmed the protections on utilities and the timeline for conditions.

Ending: Council members said their offices will continue to engage neighbors and departments if the project moves into discretionary permitting, where additional community input will be taken.","Councilmember Nithya Raman said the Bureau of Engineering’s report includes a condition requiring the applicant to coordinate with utilities; the council voted 14-0 to approve item 37 after restating those conditions and noting a two-year execution window.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6504685,"City Council approves dozens of calendar items and legal settlements in bulk vote",148,2798000,2946000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c&start=2798&end=2946","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5566381-2cd30d636c56d42d722ad674dd66123c/thumbnail_2798000.jpg","/articles/6504685/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/City-Council-approves-dozens-of-calendar-items-and-legal-settlements-in-bulk-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6504685-a929812283a6137f748396faa021defe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169292&Signature=SNnzAiskPE9hA24~z2kuiySuvw~hQrkZ6PqW75~txIPH8LcmMmVB0Y1-RPDPNyudOMWKfWUMtOzEa2-sLuhkTc1bCDVJBdBNuPIYW3pKo~ForY6WT9Pm~JNUejgAsCMi6el8Ph7t3of2zR2feX8xAWjj4kRyUuUu-dvOReaEJP-RWh-a~YvjNhMH23Ezkvf5lSOF5odjOHfXgwPcQbwAR9oRqRd1AjQWMe3DckTQEZEjDMIpuZr-IJc9nm7CETYu3Napzm6U6N4GcmZ2WpTft46pNw29H8lAAoHynDD12XKFLMY~kd5IzeZy7sivwiAndqdq7n--7cQGgbZiBWDIZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved a broad group of consent and regular-calendar items Tuesday, clearing dozens of administrative, funding and operational measures in a single roll-call vote.

The council also approved recommended payouts to resolve nine pending lawsuits, with settlement amounts read into the record and accepted as part of the package. The clerk recorded 14 ayes on the votes noted by staff.

Why it matters: The approvals move multiple city actions from study or processing into implementation or closure, including funding allocations, administrative reports and legal settlements that will be charged to the city budget.

The council’s clerk opened the block vote on items listed for immediate action, described in the clerk’s list of items for vote. After staff read the items, the president instructed the clerk to open and close the roll; the chair then announced “14 ayes,” and the measures were adopted.

The meeting later included a readout of recommended settlements in nine cases, with the city attorney’s office presenting the amounts on the record before the council voted to adopt the recommendations. The list of recommended settlements and the amounts read into the record were:

- Paul Fassnacht v. City of Los Angeles — up to $135,000
- Mitra Yodom v. City of Los Angeles — up to $250,000
- Carmen Collazo v. City of Los Angeles — up to $275,000
- Georgia Lockley v. City of Los Angeles — up to $280,000
- Lenore Encolada v. City of Los Angeles — up to $300,000
- Denise Hospman et al. v. City of Los Angeles — up to $400,000
- Cynthia Ramani v. City of Los Angeles — up to $700,000
- Anthony Nunn v. City of Los Angeles — up to $3,000,000
- City of Los Angeles v. Pulse Construction, Inc. — up to $700,000

Taken together, those settlement recommendations total up to $6,040,000.

Votes at a glance: The clerk presented a long list of calendar items, later confirmed for vote. The council recorded 14 ayes on the group vote that included the consent-calendar items and the settlement recommendations.

What councilmembers said: The meeting record shows procedural requests to receive and file specific items and to continue others to future dates; several councilmembers asked that individual items be called for comment or continued, and the president and clerk handled those requests before the bulk vote.

Context and next steps: Items adopted as part of the bulk vote will be implemented according to staff reports and department schedules; settlement payments require the city’s administrative processing to issue payments within the legal and budgetary framework. The clerk’s file and departmental reports will provide additional implementation details and funding sources in follow-up public records.

Ending: The council finished public comment and proceeded to other agenda business after the mass vote. For details on specific items approved and department next steps, consult the city clerk’s agenda and the individual departmental reports filed with the clerk’s office.","The Los Angeles City Council on Aug. 12 adopted a large package of consent and regular-calendar items and approved a slate of legal settlements totaling up to $6.04 million, voting 14-0 on the measures brought forward at the meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents accuse Councilwoman Imelda Padilla of poor transparency during City Council public comment

Council corrects street-lighting district ordinance year to fiscal 2025–26 and approves amendment

Council affirms conditions on street vacation request; utilities to remain undisturbed, applicant given two years

City Council approves dozens of calendar items and legal settlements in bulk vote