Fri, Sep 26, 2025·Los Angeles, California·City Council

Los Angeles City Council Meeting on September 26, 2025

Discussion Breakdown

Community Engagement30%
Procedural14%
Engineering And Infrastructure11%
Affordable Housing9%
Arts and Culture6%
Animal Welfare6%
Public Safety5%
Parks and Recreation5%
Personnel Matters4%
Land Use And Zoning3%
Miscellaneous2%
Economic Development1%
Pending Litigation1%
Water Management1%
Transportation Safety1%
Environmental Protection1%

Summary

Los Angeles City Council Meeting on September 26, 2025

The Los Angeles City Council held its regular meeting on September 26, 2025, featuring presentations on community inclusivity, animal welfare, and environmental conservation. Discussions included financial oversight of LASA funding and opposition to EPA regulatory rollbacks. The council also addressed public comments on various local issues.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of minutes from September 19, 2025, and various resolutions were moved and seconded. Items 1-7, 9, 10, 13, and 17 were approved unanimously via roll call vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Kathy Schreiner expressed support for item 19 (opposing EPA changes) and item 20 (holding meetings in Van Nuys), and urged inclusion of native trees in approved street tree lists.
  • Kevin J. Davis supported meetings in Van Nuys and recommended expanding DWP's potable water program for equestrian areas.
  • Candido criticized previous council actions and raised concerns about fire hazards in Porter Ranch.
  • Jennifer Clark recommended referring item 19 back to committee and highlighted public safety issues on public transportation.
  • Pastor James Thomas questioned the Charter Reform Commission's independence and perceived lack of listening from council members.
  • Jenny Colon urged passing rent control measures (Larso and 3% cap) to protect Latino renters.
  • Carolyn Fu and Veronica opposed a proposed cemetery in Woodland Hills, calling for environmental impact and traffic reviews.
  • Jasmine Watkins and others called for the removal of Errol Southers from the Police Commission, citing Islamophobic remarks and procedural concerns.

Discussion Items

  • LA is for Everyone Day: Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Adrien Nazarian celebrated the campaign's fourth anniversary, emphasizing inclusivity and immigrant rights. Capri Maddox (LA Civil Rights) and Abigail Marquez (CIFD) detailed efforts in civil rights enforcement and community resources.
  • Documentary on Elephants in Zoos: Councilmember Bob Blumenfield introduced filmmaker Fern Levitt, who argued against keeping elephants in captivity, citing physical and psychological harm. Blumenfield announced a motion for transparency on the transfer of elephants Billy and Tina from LA Zoo.
  • Mono Lake Day: Councilmember Adrien Nazarian highlighted water conservation successes. Jamie Valenzuela (LADWP) and Jeff McQuilkin (Mono Lake Committee) discussed environmental restoration and sustainable water management.
  • Item 16 - LASA Funding: Councilmember Monica Rodriguez expressed frustration with LASA's financial practices, questioning repayment guardrails. CAO Ed Gibson explained the funding mechanism and timelines.
  • Item 19 - EPA Endangerment Finding: Councilmember Yaroslavsky advocated for opposing the EPA's proposal to rescind the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, linking emissions to public health and economic costs.

Key Outcomes

  • Items 1-7, 9, 10, 13, and 17 were approved with ten ayes.
  • Item 12 was approved with nine ayes and one no.
  • Item 14 was approved with eight ayes and two nos.
  • Item 16 (substitute motion) was approved with eleven ayes.
  • Items 18 and 20 were approved with eleven ayes.
  • Item 22 was approved with ten ayes (Councilmember Price recused).
  • Item 19 was approved, opposing the EPA's proposal.
  • LA is for Everyone Day and Mono Lake Day were declared, with certificates presented to involved parties.
  • A motion was introduced for transparency on elephant transfers from LA Zoo.

Meeting Transcript

Unit when you're ready for your reinspection. That reinspection will be automatically scheduled as appropriate with their time frames. It's all computerized. So if your property remains in non-compliance after a failed re-inspection, then it's going to be cleared by city contractors. And the property owner or you will be invoiced a non-compliance fee of $668 plus an administrative fee of 1,498 on top of the contractor's fee. So you certainly want to avoid this. We get asked a lot of questions. Here is your top seven most frequently asked questions and the answer. So number one is how can I check the brush status of my own property? Again, that's that important website that we're driving home, the VMS3.lafd.org, you can register a new brush clearance account there and check the status. Now use your APN or the assessor parcel number as well as a PIN, which is your personal identification number. It's going to be printed on the bottom of the owner notification that was mailed to you annually in March. Often we get asked, well, what is the best way to contact the brush unit? Simply put, the best way is to send an email. You send it to LAFD brush at LACity.org. Now if you incorporate your APN and a brief description of the issue or the problem that you would like to discuss, that greatly assists us determining who you are and what the issue is. And then a member of our brush unit will respond to you within 48 hours. Also, you could feel free to call. But we do ask for your patience in advance because it's very busy and there's minimal inspectors, so we have a limited resources to take your call. But the office hours are from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. So what if you received a notice of noncompliance in the mail? What are you supposed to do then? Well, start by reading that notice very carefully. Identify the actual violations that were mentioned on your property. See what was cited there. And then you could follow the steps in the frequently asked questions. The first one there to see photos that was taken by the inspector of your property and where the problem is. Then you want to correct those violations by the due date. So look at that due date, it'll be located at the top right corner of your notice. Here's another question we get. Okay, you were issued a notice of noncompliance, and now you did the right thing, you finished clearing your property of the violations that you were cited. Now what? What's next? Well, truthfully, you don't have to do anything at this point. After the allotted 30-day period, a fire inspector is going to reinspect your property, and if your property is still in non-compliance, then you get that second notice to abate the fire hazard. That'll be mailed to you. Now the city will start the process to have your property cleared by a contractor at your expense, so you want to avoid that. Some ask if there is a particular contractor that should be used to clear your property. Well, simply put, the city does not provide a recommendation, nor do we endorse any contractor. So really it's you as the property owner, it's your responsibility to request the current proof of insurance, if they're bonded, if they have a license, and obtain any other relevant information about that contract. But we do try to help. So there is a brush clearance contractor list on the website. So what do you do if you feel that the inspector is wrong and that your property is in compliance and can you file an appeal? Well, the answer is yes. Yes, you can. Visit the LEFD brush website to view the detailed inspection process, and that includes appeals. However, note that a failed inspection will subject you as the owner to fees that continue to increase with each failed inspection. All billing is conducted through the city's accounting services section.