During her first week in office three years ago, Mayor Karen Bass issued a sweeping directive to speed up affordable housing applications. Now, that plan is permanent.
The L.A. City Council unanimously voted Tuesday to adopt the Affordable Housing Streamlining Ordinance. Essentially, the ordinance takes Bass’ housing initiative, known as Executive Directive 1, and incorporates it into the L.A. Municipal Code, so the streamlined process will stick around even after Bass leaves office.
Under the ordinance, developers get fast-tracked city approval for projects that include 100% affordable housing. Reviews for such projects typically take six to nine months, but under the directive, they’re required to be approved within 60 days.
The expedited processing works by stripping away many of the discretionary review processes that typically bog down housing projects: City Council hearings, environmental reports, neighborhood outreach meetings, etc. As long as projects comply with certain criteria, including zoning and design review standards, they qualify for streamlined approval.
Bass introduced the directive to make good on her campaign’s promise to address the city’s affordability and homelessness crises. It also serves as a response to housing developers who have long complained about the city’s complex permitting process, in which projects languish for weeks or months while navigating the red tape of reviews and inspections.
Affordable housing applications have been pouring in under the directive.
As of November, 490 projects have been streamlined, accounting for more than 40,000 affordable housing units, according to the Planning Department. Of those, 437 projects have been approved, with an average application process of 22 days.
It’s unclear how many of those projects are actually being built. At a December City Council meeting, Planning Department officials said that as of July, 44 streamlined projects had been started, accounting for roughly 2,500 units. But there are no data on how many have been finished.
Maria Patiño Gutierrez, deputy director for policy and advocacy at the nonprofit Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE), celebrated the decision to make the directive permanent, but said she hopes to see changes to the process down the road.
“We want this ordinance to work and bring affordable housing, but we also want to make sure it doesn’t displace tenants,” she said.
The directive has become increasingly watered down over the last three years as Bass carved out more and more areas from being subjected to streamlined applications. In June 2023, Bass exempted single-family zones from the directive, which accounts for 72% of land in L.A.
A year later, she exempted historic districts — including areas of Highland Park and Lincoln Heights — as well as “very high fire hazard severity zones,” which include parts of Silver Lake and Hollywood Hills.
To make sure streamlined projects weren’t displacing renters, Bass also exempted those that would replace rent-controlled apartment buildings with 12 units or more.
These exemptions will carry into the newly adopted ordinance, though they may be tweaked in the months to come. In a Dec. 2 meeting, City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado argued that the exemption to preserve rent-controlled buildings should shrink from a minimum of 12 units to five units, claiming such projects could displace tenants in neighborhoods such as Boyle Heights and Lincoln Heights.
Jurado said the current ordinance exempts 19% of rent-controlled buildings, but if the minimum threshold were set at five units instead of 12, it would exempt 36%.
Housing groups are pushing for amendments as well. A public comment letter published by Public Counsel and SAJE argued that maximum rents for streamlined projects should be cheaper than they’re allowed to be under current rules.
The directive defines “100% affordable housing” as 80% low-income units and 20% moderate-income units, but the nonprofits claimed that those rates, which would still let a “low-income” two-bedroom apartment be rented for as much as $2,726, are still too expensive for many Angelenos.
The Los Angeles City Council will consider an ordinance that would prevent the LAPD from using crowd control weapons against peaceful protesters and journalists.
Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who represents District 13, is pushing for regulations that would prohibit the Los Angeles Police Department from using “kinetic energy projectiles” or “chemical agents” unless officers are threatened with physical violence.
The Public Safety Committee unanimously approved the proposal and forwarded a vote with all council members on Wednesday. The items would be considered by the council in November or December, said Nick Barnes-Batista, a communications director for District 13.
The ordinance would also require officers to give clear, audible warnings about safe exit routes during “kettling,” when crowds are pushed into designated areas by police.
After the first iteration of the “No Kings” protest over the summer that saw multiple journalists shot by nonlethal rounds, tear-gassed and detained, news organizations sued the city and Police Department, arguing officers had engaged in “continuing abuse” of members of the media.
U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera granted a temporary restraining order that restricted LAPD officers from using rubber projectiles, chemical irritants and flash bangs against journalists.
Under the court order, officers are allowed to use those weapons “only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.”
LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell called the definition of journalist “ambiguous” in a news release Monday, raising concerns that the preliminary injunction could prevent the LAPD from addressing “people intent on unlawful and violent behavior.”
“The risk of harm to everyone involved increases substantially,” McDonnell wrote. “LAPD must declare an unlawful assembly, and issue dispersal orders, to ensure the safety of the public and restore order.”
The L.A. Press Club, plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the injunction, has alleged journalists were detained and assaulted by officers during an immigration protest in August. The Press Club is also involved in a similar lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“This case is about LAPD, but if necessary, we are ready to take similar action to address misconduct toward journalists by other agencies,” the organization wrote in a news release from June.
Vera ruled in September that “any duly authorized representative of any news service, online news service, newspaper, or radio or television station or network” would be classified as a journalist and therefore protected under the court’s orders. Journalists who are impeding or physically interfering with law enforcement are not subject to the protections.
Any ordinance passed by the City Council would apply to the LAPD but not other agencies that could be responding to protests that turn chaotic, such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or California Highway Patrol, thereby complicating operational procedure.
Barnes-Batista, the District 13 spokesman, said the City Council would need to discuss how to craft the rules.
“There are definitely unanswered questions about [how] the city wouldn’t want the city to be liable for other agencies not following policy,” he said. “So that will have to be worked out.”
Last month, the City Council, led by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, voted unanimously to deny a request by the city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, to push for Vera’s injunction to be lifted.
“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Hernandez said. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”
Tired of rampant shoplifting scaring away citizens and shoppers, Long Beach is trying to force stores to add staff and reduce dependence on self-checkout.
The beachfront city, with a population of around half a million, last month started requiring major food and pharmacy retailers to do more to stop theft. So far, the measures have led to a heated debate and longer lines.
Employees like the new law. The retail chains warn that the restrictions could backfire. Shoppers are confused.
The city’s “Safe Stores are Staffed Stores” ordinance is the first of its kind in the country. It requires large stores to increase the number of employees relative to self-checkout stands and also puts a limit on the number of items and types of goods that can be rung up at self-checkout.
It is the latest flash point in a national debate about how to handle what some see as an epidemic of shoplifting. This issue is affecting the quality of life for consumers who are tired of witnessing theft or dealing with measures to stop it, such as locked-up shelves.
The Long Beach ordinance will protect employees and shoppers from dangerous situations, said Matt Bell, the secretary-treasurer of UFCW 324, the union that represents grocery workers.
“The checkers and the cashiers are on the front lines of this,” he said. “It really is necessary to provide them safety and security and better staffing.”
The city said it passed the ordinance to “advance public safety and prevent retail theft,” citing “hostile and unsafe” conditions. Theft is common and underreported at self-checkout, according to the ordinance.
Rampant shoplifting has been a growing issue across the country, forcing stores to beef up security and lock up often-stolen items.
The National Retail Federation estimates that shoplifting incidents in the U.S. increased by 93% from 2019 to 2023. In 2023, retailers surveyed by the federation reported an average of 177 retail thefts per day.
The Long Beach regulations require that a large store have at least one staff member for every three self-checkout stations it uses. It sets a limit of 15 items per customer for self-checkout. Meanwhile, any items locked inside a case in the store can no longer be bought through self-checkout, according to the ordinance.
As the ordinance will force outlets to either hire more people or cut the number of self-checkout kiosks, the California Grocers Assn. warned that consumers could end up facing longer lines and higher grocery prices.
In response to the requirements, some Albertsons and Vons in Long Beach have closed their self-checkout lanes.
“We are currently unable to operate our self-checkout lanes … due to a new City of Long Beach ordinance,” said a sign for customers at a Vons in downtown Long Beach.
At a Target in Long Beach, five self-checkout stations were open and staffed by one employee. The store would need to add another employee to monitor self-checkout if it wanted to open more stations, according to the ordinance.
Francilla Isaac, a shopper who lives in the area, said she has seen closed self-checkout lanes and longer lines around the city.
“I use it a lot when I’m just here to get a few items,” Isaac said of self-checkout. “But all the stores are the same now, they have it closed.”
Groups representing grocers and retailers such as Target and Walmart said the ordinance will increase labor costs for employers, leading to higher price tags on the shelf. It will also reduce sales in stores where self-checkout has closed.
“These efforts will ultimately damage self-checkout,” said Nate Rose, a vice president at the California Grocers Assn. “We’re seeing that worst-case scenario play out where a number of grocers have decided it’s not worth it to keep the self-checkout lanes open.”
The California Retailers Assn. said retailers need freedom to decide on their own what is the most efficient way to deal with theft.
“The problem with the Long Beach ordinance is that it’s so constricting,” said Rachel Michelin, president of the association. “I think we’re going to see unintended consequences.”
Union leader Bell said grocery companies oppose the ordinance because they don’t want to hire more staff or increase their current staff’s hours. While stores may want to avoid hiring more people amid regular increases in minimum wage, they may find that being forced to hire more people actually boosts sales and efficiency.
“This should be better for the customers,” he said. “And it should actually improve profitability for the companies.”
Lisa Adams comes to Long Beach from Utah every month with her husband to sail on their boat. She misses easy access to self-checkout and hopes it will return soon, but they understand the need to tamp down on theft in the city.
She’s witnessed the theft problem firsthand.
“It was chaotic and loud,” she said. “This guy was pretending to ring his stuff up, and then he booked it for the door.”
Sacramento’s updated ordinance prohibiting unhoused individuals from sleeping outside of City Hall will go into effect on Thursday. Under the ordinance, camping outside City Hall between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. is not be allowed.City leaders said they hope it drives those camping to get the help the city is offering, while also making people feel safer entering City Hall.”We’re not trying to criminalize homelessness. We’re not trying to punish people for, you know, experiencing some sort of tragedy,” Councilman Phil Pluckebaum said. “What we’re trying to do is both create a space that’s appropriate for people coming to city hall to do business and whatever their purpose is, but also make spaces for people that are experiencing homelessness, so that they have somewhere to be with dignity.”The Sacramento City Council voted in late July to prohibit unhoused individuals from sleeping outside City Hall, reversing a 2019 policy that had allowed it. The item passed with a 6-3 vote, with council members Mai Vang, Lisa Kaplan and Caity Maple voting no.Mayor Kevin McCarty had pushed for the ordinance, claiming the cleanup costs outside of city hall were around $350,000 per year.”Having tents or sleeping bags or anything else set up in front of it is just a symbol of an abject failure in our housing policy. So, what we’re trying to do is not just erase the symbol, but also help those folks that are in those spaces,” Pluckebaum said. Throughout August, the city’s Department of Community Response has been leading outreach efforts, informing people about the changes. KCRA 3 spoke with two women who generally sleep outside of city hall on Wednesday. They said its one of the few safe places they have found to sleep. “We’re trying to survive. And City Hall is the only safe haven that we have at the moment.” Donna Valentine said. “Where is everyone supposed to go?””I feel safe because they have the camera and they have security,” Mane Davila said. “We have to figure something out after tomorrow.”Beginning Thursday, they’ll have to find a new place to sleep. Despite the outreach, Davila and Valentine did not accept the resources offered, citing what they consider to be strict rules at shelters.”They did, but unfortunately, I’m not going back to the shelter,” Valentine said. KCRA 3 observed the ordinance take effect on Thursday. Watch in the video below:The enforcement details remain unclear, but any person who violates the new rule could face a fine of at least $250 and face misdemeanor charges. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
Sacramento’s updated ordinance prohibiting unhoused individuals from sleeping outside of City Hall will go into effect on Thursday.
Under the ordinance, camping outside City Hall between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. is not be allowed.
“We’re not trying to criminalize homelessness. We’re not trying to punish people for, you know, experiencing some sort of tragedy,” Councilman Phil Pluckebaum said. “What we’re trying to do is both create a space that’s appropriate for people coming to city hall to do business and whatever their purpose is, but also make spaces for people that are experiencing homelessness, so that they have somewhere to be with dignity.”
The Sacramento City Council voted in late July to prohibit unhoused individuals from sleeping outside City Hall, reversing a 2019 policy that had allowed it. The item passed with a 6-3 vote, with council members Mai Vang, Lisa Kaplan and Caity Maple voting no.
Mayor Kevin McCarty had pushed for the ordinance, claiming the cleanup costs outside of city hall were around $350,000 per year.
“Having tents or sleeping bags or anything else set up in front of it is just a symbol of an abject failure in our housing policy. So, what we’re trying to do is not just erase the symbol, but also help those folks that are in those spaces,” Pluckebaum said.
Throughout August, the city’s Department of Community Response has been leading outreach efforts, informing people about the changes.
KCRA 3 spoke with two women who generally sleep outside of city hall on Wednesday. They said its one of the few safe places they have found to sleep.
“We’re trying to survive. And City Hall is the only safe haven that we have at the moment.” Donna Valentine said. “Where is everyone supposed to go?”
“I feel safe because they have the camera and they have security,” Mane Davila said. “We have to figure something out after tomorrow.”
Beginning Thursday, they’ll have to find a new place to sleep. Despite the outreach, Davila and Valentine did not accept the resources offered, citing what they consider to be strict rules at shelters.
“They did, but unfortunately, I’m not going back to the shelter,” Valentine said.
KCRA 3 observed the ordinance take effect on Thursday. Watch in the video below:
The enforcement details remain unclear, but any person who violates the new rule could face a fine of at least $250 and face misdemeanor charges.
A 15-year-old Jones High student was charged for bringing a gun to an Orlando school.
The Orlando Police Department said it will not hesitate to protect the students and teachers they serve and take all threats seriously.
After a social media post was shared about a student with a gun at Jones High School, a 15-year-old was swiftly located by the School Resource Officers on campus.
The student was found with an unloaded BB gun. However, it did not have any markings to distinguish it from a real firearm, according to local law enforcement.
While there was no threat associated with his social media post, the actions of this student caused unnecessary fear among his peers, their parents and teachers.
The student was charged with a city ordinance violation: Carrying a Simulated Firearm.
In light of the recent school shooting in Georgia, the Orlando Police Department expressed its unwavering commitment to vigilance in local schools and to stop any individuals who could be considered a danger to public safety.
Permanent limits on nightclubs downtown have been passed
Orlando City Council has voted to pass new and permanent mandates on nightlife in downtown Orlando Monday.
The Council passed a new ordinance, taking effect this fall, that will permanently limit the opening of new nightclubs to one nightclub per block in Orlando’s downtown entertainment area, requiring a 300-foot distance between each new club.
City Council voted unanimously to pass this new ordinance. This was the second vote on the ordinance; the first reading last month moved forward with a 6-1 vote in favor of passing. The sole dissenting voice then, District 2 commissioner Tony Ortiz, switched his vote at Monday’s meeting.
Existing nightclubs that don’t conform to this distance limit would be grandfathered in under the proposal, although they could be prevented from expanding under these rules.
Concurrently, Orlando City Commissioners lifted a moratorium on new bar and nightclub construction. But any new construction would be potentially hamstrung by these limitations.
City leaders made the case that the new rule is another step towards a “safer” and more family-friendly downtown
During the meeting,District 4 commissioner Patty Sheehandid a little bit of pearl-clutching about the supposed dangers of downtown Orlando: “We just have too many bars and too much going on — and I walk through downtown, sometimes. I see the craziness. I hear the craziness!”
Beacham property owner Margaret Casscells-Hamby told Central Florida Public Media that perhaps the Council doesn’t understand the attraction of downtown Orlando for locals: “The people who are trying to — who are wishing this — to happen don’t understand the market. Because the people who come downtown love having fun. … They’re in their 20s, they’re in their 30s. They come from all walks of life.”
Workers at big retail and grocery stores in unincorporated L.A. County can retain a little more control over their schedules — and rely a little less on managers’ whims — starting next summer.
On Tuesday, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted to require that employers give those workers their schedules two weeks in advance, compensate them for last-minute schedule changes and space out their shifts by at least 10 hours.
The ordinance, which will go into effect July 2025, applies to any retailer and grocer in unincorporated L.A. County with 300 or more employees nationwide.
The county has estimated that the ordinance would affect about 200 businesses, many of them large chains, and up to 6,000 workers. Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who spearheaded the policy, said Tuesday’s vote would benefit both.
“It is a win for retailers committed to a work environment that gives them a competitive edge and for our retail workers who deserve the dignity of a predictable schedule so they can plan for childcare, school and other life obligations,” she said.
The policy closely mirrors the “fair work week” ordinance the City of Los Angeles passed in 2022.
Like the city’s version, the county’s policy requires that retailers provide “predictability pay” if they change a worker’s schedule last-minute and get employee’s approval before assigning them so-called “clopening” shifts — a closing shift followed immediately by an opening shift the next day. The ordinance also bars an employer from retaliating against an employee who reports violations.
Several business and trade groups argued that the policy needlessly complicates the delicate art of scheduling staff. The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce said it would hamper businesses already struggling to compete against e-commerce companies, saddling them with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars. The California Grocers Association argued it would create needless bureaucracy, making eleventh-hour staffing changes “extremely challenging.”
Both groups said they wished the policy included a grace period for a store to solve “honest clerical mistakes” without getting penalized.
“Scheduling flexibility is one of the industry perks that many enjoy about working in grocery stores, yet this ordinance will make schedule changes, especially within a week of a shift, nearly impossible,” wrote Nate Rose, a spokesperson for the grocers association. “Taken together, its pay penalty requirements and the likely increase in needless lawsuits, will only lead to higher costs at the grocery store for Los Angeles shoppers.”
The county’s Department of Consumer and Business Affairs would be responsible for enforcing the policy. Each violation comes with a penalty of $500 to $1000.
Janna Shadduck-Hernández, project director at the UCLA Labor Center, said she believes the policy will bring stability to the lives of thousands of low-income workers. A 2018 study from the center found that the vast majority of retail workers, many of whom are people of color, get their schedules a week or less in advance.
“What this allows is people to organize their lives,” she said.
In recent years, major cities including Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia and New York City, as well as the state of Oregon, have passed laws to protect the time of shift workers. Kristen Harknett, a professor of sociology at University of California, San Francisco who studied the impact of Seattle’s policy, said she found workers’ well-being improved as their schedules became more predictable.
“When you don’t know when — or how much — you’re going to work from one day or the next, it’s very disruptive,” she said. “It really just messes up your ability to plan.”
Harknett said the county’s version has the same components as the other jurisdictions, with one key difference: food service workers aren’t included.
“The carve-out for the restaurant and food industry is pretty unique,” she said. “Food service is pretty unstable and unpredictable, [and] those workers are not going to experience the enhanced protections that their counterparts in retail will.”
The county indicated in a report last May that it would look at providing “coverage for workers in several other vulnerable industries, particularly food service” in the future.
Amardeep Gill with the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, an advocacy group that pushed for the county policy, said she hoped other industries would enact a similar ordinance for their own sectors.
“We’re hoping the work that we’ve done here really lays like a strong foundation where others can build upon this,” said Gill.
Airbnbs and other short-term rentals in unincorporated areas will be restricted to hosts who are renting out their primary residence, under a proposal that gained preliminary approval from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
Officials say the rentals have proliferated across the county’s unincorporated areas, sometimes leaving a trail of raucous parties and trash-strewn streets.
The proposed ordinance, five years in the making, would prohibit hosts from listing second homes, guesthouses, accessory dwelling units or investment properties in unincorporated L.A. County.
The supervisors, who unanimously passed the ordinance on Tuesday, must vote on it one more time, likely early next month, before it becomes law.
Under the proposed ordinance, hosts in unincorporated areas — home to roughly 1 million residents — would have to register with the county and pay an annual fee of $914. A property could be rented for no more than 30 consecutive days at a time. And so-called “corporate hosts,” who rent out multiple properties, would have to pull their listings.
“It takes them right out of the game,” said Randy Renick, head of Better Neighbors LA, which pushes for regulations on short-term rentals.
Better Neighbors LA says the ordinance would return desperately needed housing to the market. The group has estimated that there are more than 2,600 houses available for short-term rental in unincorporated county areas.
The ordinance was supported by several tenant advocacy groups and public officials, who argued that short-term rentals were displacing long-term residents and replacing them with unruly tourists. Some residents have told news outlets that their street has been turned into a “de facto hotel.”
“All around the County, residents must suddenly deal with commercial enterprises in the middle of their neighborhoods, bringing in rowdy parties, parking difficulties, high volumes of trash, loud noise, and guests that have no stake in safeguarding the community,” a coalition of city officials wrote in a joint letter.
Some hosts — as well as the rental platforms they use — have opposed the proposed ordinance, arguing that it is an “attack” on mom-and-pop landlords, disincentivizes tourists from visiting and cuts off a much-needed income stream.
At a county board meeting last month, Airbnb host Ellen Snortland said she felt she was being unfairly lumped with corporate landlords. She said she is in her 70s and uses Airbnb to stave off foreclosure.
“Do you think people like us Airbnb hosts do it to get rich?” she said. “We do it for survival.”
Vrbo, an online platform for vacation rentals, said it believes the county’s regulations would harm both tourists and the families that want to host them.
The proposal “severely limits the options available to traveling families visiting the area and economic opportunity for residents who own, manage, and service these accommodations,” a spokesperson for the Expedia Group, which oversees Vrbo, wrote in a statement.
The county’s crackdown comes more than five years after the city of Los Angeles passed its own short term rental restrictions, which barred Angelenos from renting out second homes on platforms such as Airbnb. The county’s version would bring unincorporated areas roughly in line with the city.
Maria Patiño Gutierrez, director of policy with the tenant rights group Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, said residents will sometimes report illegal vacation rentals in their neighborhoods, only to discover that the homes are actually in unincorporated L.A. County and, therefore, completely legal.
“The housing crisis is in all of L.A. County,” she said.
Some supporters of the ordinance hope there will be one significant difference from L.A. city: enforcement with teeth.
Researchers have found that hosts in L.A. regularly flout the city’s rules, with little consequence. A studyfrom 2022 found that nearly half the short-term rentals in the city were illegal.
Renick with Better Neighbors LA said he believes the county will do a better job of enforcement, though he said details on how that will be done are “thin.”
“We’re confident, given what the various supervisors have told us, that the county’s going to take enforcement seriously,” he said.
Nichole Alcaraz,operations chief with the county’s treasurer and tax collector, which spearheaded the ordinance, said they’re still hammering out the penalties for hosts that don’t comply. She said there will be more details in the coming month.
“We do know there’s going to be an enforcement arm. We do have some general ideas about how that’s going to work,” she said. “But the amount [of the penalty] may change.”
The ordinance would go into effect six months after the final vote and would include all property owners in unincorporated L.A. County with the exception of those along the coast. Residents in unincorporated coastal areas — including Marina del Rey, Catalina Island and the Santa Monica Mountains — will need to wait for the California Coastal Commission to consider the ordinance.
For five years, vendors hawking grilled meats, fresh fruit and used clothes on the streets of unincorporated L.A. County have been stuck in a strange legal gray area: no longer banned, but not yet regulated.
On Tuesday, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors took a major step toward bringing these sellers out of their regulatory limbo, pushing forward a long-awaited ordinance that would set rules for street vending in unincorporated parts of the county.
In 2018, California decriminalized street vending statewide, opening the door for local jurisdictions to create their own laws around who could sell what and where. Since then, at least 16 cities in L.A. County have created their own rules.
“Now the county must do its part,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis, adding she believed the rule change would bring marginalized entrepreneurs, overwhelmingly from Latino and immigrant communities, into the county’s bustling economy.
Under the ordinance, street vendors setting up in unincorporated parts of the county would have to register with the county’s Department of Economic Opportunity, which would enforce the new rules: no blocking the sidewalk, no selling on private property, no excessive littering, to name a few. Vendors could face fines if they don’t comply.
The Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 0 in support of the ordinance, though they will need to take a final vote before it can pass. The ordinance would go into effect six months later.
The supervisors also voted 4 to 0 to move forward on an ordinance from the county’s Department of Public Health that would change how food carts are regulated.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstained from both votes.
Barger said she’d heard from business owners who believed the rule change would create an uneven playing field between bricks-and-mortar businesses and street vendors, who she believed would get off relatively easy for violating the rules.
Kelly LoBianco, head of the Department of Economic Opportunity, said the agency would emphasize a “care first” approach to enforcement, meaning the emphasis would be on educating vendors about the new regulations rather than fining them for flouting them.
“I feel that we have not gone far enough,” Barger said. “The penalties don’t meet what we’re requiring for restaurants that can get shut down and lose a day’s business.”
Business owners said they were also concerned about unnavigable streets and trash — problems, they believed, that would not improve unless the county cracked down.
“Without having a rigorous, effective enforcement, nothing’s going to happen,” said Tony DeMarco, a pawnshop owner and president of the Whittier Boulevard Merchants Assn., which opposed the ordinance.
While bricks-and-mortar business owners lamented an uneven playing field, street vendors and their advocates hailed the rules as some of the best they’ve seen since the state decriminalized street vending.
“Our hope is that L.A. County can actually be the model,” said Doug Smith of Inclusive Action, part of a coalition of groups that have advocated for legalization of street vending. “It does not include some of the things we’ve seen that are really intended to keep them out of the system — things like criminal background checks, really high fees or really significant restrictions on locations.”
Smith said, however, that food vendors, in particular, could still face a challenging path to registering with the county as they would need to get a permit from the Department of Public Health, which enforces the state’s retail food code. Food vendors ubiquitous across the county, such as taco stands, have struggled in the past with the agency’s cumbersome rules, and only a small fraction are believed to have the proper permits.
Barbara Ferrer, director of the Public Health Department, emphasized Tuesday that the rule changes under consideration would not apply to “pop-up food stands” — typically larger food operations with big tables and canopies that she said can’t be permitted under state law.
Advocates say some jurisdictions have taken a punitive approach when formalizing rules on street vending. In Fontana, for example, unlicensed sellers could be arrested on misdemeanor charges. The city of Los Angeles, which passed its ordinance in 2018, has been sued over its “no-vending zone” — tourist-friendly areas such as Dodger Stadium and Hollywood Bowl where city officials contend vendors will add to congestion.
Ritu Mahajan Estes of Public Counsel, which represents the vendors suing Los Angeles, said the law firm supports the county’s ordinance, which doesn’t have any significant no-vending zones.
Newsletter
Get the lowdown on L.A. politics
Sign up for our L.A. City Hall newsletter to get weekly insights, scoops and analysis.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
She said there were some small tweaks she’d like to see: namely nixing the requirements on distancing. Under the draft ordinance, sidewalk vendors cannot be within 500 feet of a day-care nor farmers market.
“It’s not perfect, but it has a lot of good things,” she said.
Other vendors said they worried about how much it could end up costing them to get licensed. The department says it would need to set the registration fee at $604 to offset the regulatory program costs. Officials say they don’t plan to charge the first year and have found funding that will allow them to charge $100 annually through mid-2028.
Many of the vendors warn that a fee of $600 — if it came to fruition years later— would be a death knell to their business.
“Rent is high. Food is high. The cost of living is high,” Alfredo Gomez, a street vendor in East Rancho Dominguez, told the board through an interpreter. “Please, look at the cost, the fees.”
San Mateo County officials are hoping to add an unusual tactic to their multi-pronged approach to tackling the homelessness crisis: making it a crime to refuse to accept available, temporary housing.
In a unanimous vote this week, county supervisors moved forward with the proposal — despite significant opposition from civil rights groups and some homeless advocates — which would allow authorities to issue a misdemeanor violation to anyone living in a homeless encampment who refuses to move into available, temporary housing after a health evaluation and at least two warnings.
“One of the toughest challenges we face is addressing and assisting those in encampments who tend to decline services or refuse services,” Supervisor Dave Pine said at Tuesday’s board meeting. “The hope is it will be a tool to help move individuals into shelter.”
Opponents worry it will criminalize homelessness.
But Pine, along with board President Warren Slocum, co-sponsor of the ordinance, said the measure is the latest in a host of comprehensive solutions — including a street medicine team and the conversion of hotels to temporary housing — aimed at reducing homelessness in San Mateo County.
“Forty homeless people die in San Mateo county every year. … That’s just not acceptable,” Slocum said. This proposal “isn’t about criminalizing people, it’s about helping those who really may not be able to help themselves. … We really do have the capacity to house people and get people the help they need.”
Officials said the county has up to 30 unused shelter beds available every night, though that falls short of the estimated 44 people living in homeless encampments across unincorporated San Mateo County. Many more encampments are located in the county’s 20 cities, including Daly City and Redwood City, but this ordinance would apply only in unincorporated areas.
After San Mateo made investments to respond to the homelessness crisis in the last two years, the number of people on the streets significantly dipped, with more accessing shelter facilities, according to County Executive Officer Mike Callagy.
“We’re down now to the hard-to-reach population, the population that doesn’t want to come in,” Callagy said.
If the proposal reaches final approval next week, someone in an encampment who refuses an offer for an available bed will have 72 hours to change their mind, receiving two written warnings. After that, authorities could issue a misdemeanor citation, which Callagy said would be handled through diversion programs, like mental health court.
But no one would be cited if county officials don’t have a bed available, Callagy said. He stressed that the goal is not to issue tickets or route people into the criminal justice system but to get services and housing to those in need.
“We believe that once offered those options, most people will avail themselves to the services,” Callagy said. He hopes the citations are rarely issued but are used as a deterrent.
“At the end of the day, it’s about saving lives,” said David Canepa, another county supervisor. “I don’t buy into the narrative that we should do nothing.”
County officials touting the proposal said it was based on a Houston ordinance, adopted in 2017, that made homeless encampments on public property illegal and tried to funnel people into temporary housing. While the program has been highlighted for its success at removing encampments and helping people get off the streets, the Houston Chronicle found that tickets and arrests for violating the provision — given only after a warning and an offer of housing — continue to increase.
In Los Angeles, city officials have been making efforts to address growing encampments by encouraging people to accept temporary shelter and enforcing laws that forbid blocking sidewalks or other specific places.
In San Mateo County, the proposed ordinance has drawn critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, religious leaders and the San Mateo County Private Defender Program, which represents indigent defendants. Critics say they worry about the unintended consequences of such a law.
“Policing is no way to get people into treatment,” said William Freeman, senior council of ACLU of Northern California, decrying the “seriously flawed ordinance.”
While he praised the county for its recent work on homelessness, he said that “anti-camping ordinances invite over-policing and abuse.”
Lauren P. McCombs, an Episcopal deacon and a leader for Faith in Action Bay Area, called the criminalization of homelessness “inhumane treatment of our unhoused neighbors.”
“Our county needs to solve this crisis by ensuring safe and affordable housing options that are available to all residents, with strong incentives and not threats of incarceration,” McCombs said.
County officials on Tuesday took into account some concerns from the public, amending the ordinance to include a health evaluation before warnings are issued and a review process scheduled to launch after a few months.
Supervisor Noelia Corzo said her half-brother is homeless in San Mateo County, so she knows first-hand how complex the issue is. She said she is proud of the county for “doing something different.”
“I don’t take this lightly,” she said, “but not doing anything is not working either.”
The cul-de-sac ends at the top of a hill with a sweeping view of the San Fernando Valley. From there, Hermano Drive slopes downward, curving left and gradually steepening before snaking right at a precipitous trajectory more reminiscent of a black-diamond ski slope than a suburban neighborhood.
At the bottom is busy Reseda Boulevard, with just a stop sign between the corner of Hermano Drive and the dangerous cross-traffic.
But ever since 2016, the Tarzana enclave has had four other signs that can’t be found on any other road in Los Angeles. Made of metal, there are two on the way up and two on the way down, each declaring: “NO SKATEBOARDING ON STREET & SIDEWALK.”
As skateboarding has gone from a maligned subculture to an Olympic sport, the signs along this hillside lane citing Sec. 56.15.2 of the city’s municipal code — “No person shall ride a skateboard on Hermano Drive” — reflect the contentiousness that occasionally flares up over its more dangerous manifestations.
Aaron Barlava in front of his parents’ home on Hermano Drive in Tarzana.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
The ordinance was badly needed, 25-year-old Aaron Barlava, who grew up on Hermano Drive, said while shooting hoops outside his parents’ house one recent afternoon.
“We’d always have groups of kids come up here toward the top of the hill and race down on their skateboards at excessive speeds,” he said. “It’s not for the sake of saying we don’t like skateboarding. … It’s a safety hazard. That is a very steep hill.”
The tucked-away feel of this community of about two dozen homes attracted many of its residents to Hermano Drive. But it also once drew groups of teenagers who saw its topography and knew they had to “bomb” it.
Getting on a board and riding down a hill as fast as possible, known as “bombing a run,” is a dangerous, and sometimes deadly, pursuit. The list of fatal accidents includes two teenagers who died within a few months of each other more than a decade ago in San Pedro, spurring an ordinance that restricted where and how skateboards can be ridden citywide and described bombing hills as “a significant danger.”
But tall hills never stopped beckoning a certain breed of young adrenaline junkies. And about nine years ago, a group of them decided Hermano Drive was a spot worth bombing again and again.
***
When L.A. Councilman Bob Blumenfield started getting calls in 2015 from some Hermano Drive homeowners about groups of teens repeatedly slaloming past, he said, he “went over there and was like, ‘Damn, that does look like a fun run.’”
A self-described “skate rat” in his youth, Blumenfield nevertheless introduced the ordinance to bar skateboarding on the asphalt hill, labeling it an “extremely dangerous activity.” The municipal code, he noted, allows for ordinances restricting skateboarding in public places where skaters have exhibited “a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”
Bob Blumenfield at a Sept. 26 Los Angeles City Council meeting.
(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)
For months residents drove a little slower on Hermano, worried the combination of limited visibility and high speeds would eventually result in a skater being run over.
“I had to respond to the real safety concerns that community members had, which is this became the spot where kids would skate down — what they call bombing — and then veer off right at the end of the street,” the councilman said recently. “As you turn onto Reseda Boulevard, you don’t know what’s around the corner.”
In the years before the ordinance went into effect in April 2016, there were reports of multiple skateboarding injuries on the cul-de-sac, Blumenfield said, but there have been none since.
Sasoon Petrosian said he hasn’t seen a single skateboarder on the street since he moved into his house along one of the steepest stretches of Hermano Drive eight years ago.
Cars travel along Reseda Boulevard where it intersects with Hermano Drive, background, in Tarzana.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
“I see cars coming up and driving fast back down, and runners come up here and run back down,” the 43-year-old engineering director said while taking a break from dismantling Christmas decorations on his porch. “I have not seen anybody skate here. [The ordinance] definitely has worked.”
But there have been at least 11 citations issued for skateboarding on the street, according to records obtained from the Los Angeles Police Department via public records request. The department did not provide additional information about the citations or how it enforces the law, which provides for a $50 fine for a first offense and $100 for subsequent violations.
While street bombing is no longer as popular as it once was and seems to have been eliminated on Hermano Drive, it’s still a point of contention in some communities.
Last summer, the San Francisco Police Department arrested 32 adults and cited 81 minors during a clash with participants and spectators at an annual skateboarding event dubbed the “Dolores Hill Bomb.” The unsanctioned event draws hundreds of people to the sheer hills near the city’s Mission Dolores Park — where the most daring of them careen down the public roadways at high speed, resulting in injuries and one death in past years.
The department said in a news release that law enforcement action at last year’s bomb was necessary because the gathering had turned into a “riot” after an altercation broke out between attendees and a police sergeant.
***
Skateboarders have long been at odds with police and property owners.
From the vilification they faced in the ‘70s and ‘80s, through the “skateboarding is not a crime” era that continued well into the 2000s, successive generations of boarders were maligned and driven out of many shared public spaces.
But the ascendance of skateboarding from an underground street diversion into a major industry and legitimate sports enterprise coincided with a transformation of its image in suburbs across America.
A 2010 photo of skateboarders “bombing” down Bluebird Canyon in Laguna Beach.
(John W. Adkisson / Los Angeles Times)
The best-selling video game franchise Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater, along with ESPN’s X Games and “Jackass” performer Bam Margera brought new generations of kids to skate culture.
Social media and YouTube made it so anyone with a board and a smartphone could share their latest tricks and falls with the world and interact with millions of other skaters doing the same. Then came the widening embrace during the COVID era of the ‘90s and early aughts skater aesthetic. Today, it’s not rare to see teenagers in the Valley wearing vintage Thrasher or Nirvana T-shirts over torn baggy jeans and Airwalks.
With its anointment as an Olympic sport in 2020, skateboarding completed its transition to widespread acceptance. Many young parents who grew up skating themselves now see it as a wholesome way to get their kids out from behind their computer screens, doing something active with other young people.
Late Friday afternoon, Cory Masson’s was one of about two dozen long, gold-bathed shadows that zipped across the graffitied pavement at Pedlow Skate Park in Encino — less than two miles from Hermano Drive. The 9-year-old disappeared straight down into the empty deep end of a smooth cement pool and popped back out on the other end, sticking the landing.
Born in 1977, Cory’s mom, Brenda Masson, grew up in the ‘90s skating in the Valley and “watching our boyfriends get hit in the head with skateboards by security guards.” She wasn’t familiar with Hermano Drive, but she described the fact that skateboarding was specifically banned there as “the oddest thing I’ve ever heard.”
Today, she spends long days at the skate park watching her son and chatting with other parents.
“Cory is on the spectrum and I was looking for something for him to do solo,” she said. “I think the skate population has grown exponentially, and there’s way more girls skating. We’ve seen an extreme positive change in it.”
***
Luna Luna, 19, of Reseda, practices a hardflip while skateboarding at Pedlow Skate Park in Encino.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
At the same time, there’s a rebel streak in the sport that refuses to die.
Martin Garcia said he “grew up bombing hills; that’s just something we did.” Asked what he liked about the death-defying runs, the 27-year-old Van Nuys resident’s eyes lit up as he recalled the feeling.
“It’s sick,” he said. “The fact that it’s dangerous as f—, that’s what attracts people. You go down that hill and escape death four times, it’s like, ‘Wow.’ And your homies are impressed.”
Ramon Black, 37, said he still skates Pedlow frequently. He understands the dangers of treacherous roads, but said he and his friends loved bombing another steep hill in the Valley when they were kids.
“I get why they do it. It’s a safety and liability issue,” Black said in between greeting friends as they rolled by. “When you’re young you don’t care about that stuff, but now that I’m older I know better.”
Eduardo Galvan is a lifelong skater who grew up in Venice, one of the sport’s crucibles. The 59-year-old is now “more of a cruiser” who rides his longboard mostly in the South Bay and runs a company in Tarzana that sells a range of products online, including skateboards.
Galvan said he’d never heard of Hermano Drive, but he doesn’t think the government should determine what spots are too dangerous to skate.
“We’re gonna do it regardless. If you’re a true skater it doesn’t matter, you’re gonna skate anyways,” he said. “This is your freedom.”
When the L.A. Al Fresco dining program was established in 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Christy Vega said it saved her 67-year-old family-owned restaurant.
For Vega’s Sherman Oaks restaurant, Casa Vega, this meant converting two parking lots into outdoor dining space, a change that made it possible for Vega to continue to serve customers and pay her employees.
“It was wildly vital to our survival,” she said.
The city is now moving to make the program’s relaxed regulations permanent, allowing restaurants to continue operating outdoor space without pre-pandemic zoning restrictions. The Los Angeles City Council signified its commitment to al fresco dining with a vote Friday requesting the city attorney draft an ordinance to make the program permanent.
It’s a victory for the restaurant industry and for communities accustomed to eating outside, but some business owners and residents say the city’s new version of the program isn’t perfect.
A last-minute amendment to the ordinance mandates that restaurants include one parking spot for disabled people on their property, a requirement that would effectively eliminate outdoor dining space for smaller businesses, Vega said.
“It’ll kill al fresco for anybody that doesn’t have a giant parking lot,” she said.
Vega said she would have to take down her patio and lose $1 million in revenue if she had to make space for a disabled parking spot that also includes room for a vehicle to back out and turn around. To avoid that, she said, she’s spent $60,000 trying to obtain a conditional use permit to keep her patio permanently.
In an effort to protect small businesses, the City Council on Friday added an exception to the parking space requirement for restaurants with 3,000 square feet of indoor space or 1,000 square feet of parking space or less.
Vega said she is grateful for the exemption, but other owners say it’s not enough.
“Square footage has nothing to do with the size of the business,” said Brittney Valles, who sits on the board of the Independent Hospitality Coalition and owns Guerrilla Tacos in downtown Los Angeles. “It shouldn’t be a requirement at all.”
Valles, who has enough outdoor space for dining and a disabled parking spot, said the rule could be devastating for many restaurants who don’t.
“I think that there are a lot of restaurants that would have to rethink whether their business is feasible without outdoor dining,” she said.
Councilmember Tim McOsker, who introduced the exception to the parking requirement, said at Wednesday’s council meeting that he was trying to strike a balance between supporting al fresco dining for small businesses and ensuring accessibility for disabled customers.
Implementing a permanent al fresco program has been a long road for the City Council and the restaurant community. City officials first drafted an ordinance in November 2022 and have spent more than a year receiving public comment.
The initial ordinance required restaurant owners to navigate a complicated process to get their outdoor dining approved, Valles said.
“It was going to be this overbearing process that costs restaurants a lot of money and made it very complicated to do basically what we’re already doing,” she said.
To reach a compromise, Valles and her fellow restaurant owners agreed to a ban on outdoor ambient music, which is prohibited by the temporary program. Live music is also prohibited.
Venice resident David Feige said the current ban on ambient music is not enforced in his neighborhood, and the new version of the al fresco ordinance doesn’t do enough to create enforcement mechanisms.
Casa Vega owner Christy Vega talks to customers Kendra Dousette, left, and Scarlett Pettyjohn on Thursday.
(Michael Blackshire / Los Angeles Times)
There are several unpermitted outdoor speakers at restaurants on his block near Washington Boulevard that are disruptively loud, he said.
“If we close all the windows, turn on the noise machine and we can still hear the music in our bedroom, that’s a problem,” he said.
Although the ordinance includes the establishment of a hotline for complaints and says the public can contact the Department of Building and Safety to report a violation, Feige said those measures will be ineffective.
“The minute they see the cops coming, they turn it down,” he said of the restaurants with speakers, “and 10 minutes later, they turn it back up. There is no meaningful ability for redress here.”
Feige spoke at Tuesday’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee meeting and said he was representing more than a dozen of his neighbors. He called for a complaint-based system, in which a restaurant gets cited or shut down if it receives too many complaints.
Newsletter
Get the lowdown on L.A. politics
Sign up for our L.A. City Hall newsletter to get weekly insights, scoops and analysis.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Vega also said enforcement is an important issue. Only a handful of restaurants play disruptive music, but she doesn’t want them to ruin the reputation of the al fresco program.
But Vega said she is most worried about the parking space measure and the restaurants that may have to lay off employees after shutting down outdoor space.
“Restaurant workers have not had any financial security or job security since the pandemic,” she said. “The No. 1 gift of this program was that we were able to get our employees back to work.”
Restaurant owners say they hope the new version of L.A. Al Fresco will run just as smoothly as the first. The original program during the pandemic was “the absolute easiest thing” to take advantage of, Valles said.
“This was such a beautiful, simple win for restaurants when it launched in 2020,” she said. “We just want to keep it that way.”
SIMSBURY, Conn. (WTNH) – The town of Simsbury is holding a public hearing on an 18-month ordinance banning marijuana retail sales Monday evening.
The meeting will be inside town hall at 6pm.
The town was considering an adult-use dispensary in the area of Route 44. At previous town hall meetings hosted by the zoning board, some neighbors were worried about addiction and teens using marijuana.
At a board of selectman meeting in January, four out of six selectmen voted to create an ordinance that would ban retail sales until September 2024.
Some votes could change after the public hearing Monday, but First Selectwoman Wendy Mackstutis told News 8 she doesn’t expect that to happen.
She is still in favor of retail sales, saying surrounding towns and cities have already allowed adult-use dispensaries to open.
“I didn’t think having a retail store would create any issues because it’s going to be here, it’s here now,” she said. “It’s in Massachusetts and I thought [about] the revenue, regardless of how small, we’ll get some of it for that we can put to good use.”
The public could end the 18-month band if they demand a referendum. The public is invited to share their opinions on the matter during public comment.
“I’m hoping tomorrow night we get a little more of a different crowd of people that see what’s going around the state, the amount of revenue that’s coming in,” said Mackstutis.
