[{"_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":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6609562,"mediaKeyId","2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d","parentId",2912338,"title","Council approves two historic-property nominations; one designation passed on consent, another after extended public comment","audioSeconds",3283,"startMs",271000,"endMs",3554000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d&start=271&end=3554","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d/thumbnail_271000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6609562/California/Council-approves-two-historic-property-nominations-one-designation-passed-on-consent-another-after-extended-public-comment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6609562-91393cc4d5e9c9b30caa818e9ed40763/orig.mp4?Expires=1775649110&Signature=YWrt2gBODbX~pnUoaOkjxFJb9LHehjQYEbveZ7N80EESgerLB00gh95JJkgVpiP0bBblnZY4L1xXHUffCVa-paPNAgeGuUFpcUK161luFWKEYpACRS0-5~1LDUWwdmjoh6cktWCxflmrPzBVZium9IwzwdrmfhM1JX8~Di4WW5rpcfqnV0AIP1eZ2MYTjvjtxmRjn0xVUIzwhw40-fdiJTxuTIwMB1GnkI5NzcwQ4Z1PiOCeo9CsxuQwMJaTsZNhsDvUcgrAdHyGDO8g3LXudpqZEfeaP8zA1hqi-Fu3GBJPHUVwX0-0G0MkREBDy5vwNrB2eG8RYGm~RLMbUZ4PUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-08T16:56:20Z","article","The City Council approved two historic-property actions: one was adopted on the consent calendar and the other followed extended public comment.

On the consent calendar the council approved three consent items including item 8, a Heritage/Cultural Commission nomination to designate a set of buildings (referred to in public comment as a corridor of older multi-family buildings) as a historic monument; the clerk recorded five yes votes. Speakers who registered in support included Bremen Gutiérrez, Lindsay Molkeyi (representing a local conservancy) and Jessica Sánchez, each urging designation to preserve the buildings and enable rehabilitation.

Later in the meeting the council heard a longer, contested nomination for apartments associated with architect/developer William Melentine. Ken Berthstein of the Historic Resources Planning office presented the staff recommendation noting the buildings were constructed in 1954, represent an example of Melentine’s multi-family designs and were found significant by the Cultural Heritage Commission. Supporters including neighborhood council members, long-term residents and the property owner’s representative described the buildings’ architectural character and community value. Opponents — including the applicant’s counsel — argued that the nomination could impede a pending ED1 affordable-housing application and said the nomination did not include a comparative analysis to justify historic significance against other Melentine-era properties.

Staff and council members addressed how a Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) designation interacts with ED1 (an emergency/expedited affordable housing application path discussed in the staff report). Staff explained that HCM designation does not automatically bar an ED1 project; the ED1 process includes a mechanism for considering historic status and the designation’s main effect is to subject substantial alterations and demolitions to historic-review procedures. Planning staff said that, because the ED1 application under discussion was not yet final, the site remained eligible for ED1 incentives; the HCM designation would affect any later changes that required historic-review approvals.

After discussion the council approved the William Melentine apartments’ designation by a unanimous vote. Planning staff’s memo and commissioners’ report were cited as part of the record. The council’s votes in both matters were unanimous, and staff said the designation would help preserve a relatively rare remaining example of this multifamily architectural type in the neighborhood.

The council did not change ED1 administrative rules in the meeting; staff described how the two processes would proceed in parallel and noted the HCM designation primarily affects future alteration or demolition review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning and Land Use Management Committee - SAP - 4/08/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council approved a consent-item historic designation for a set of buildings (item 8) and unanimously designated a William Malentine-era apartment group as a Historic-Cultural Monument after extensive public comment; staff and applicants described how the designations affect an in-process ED1 affordable housing application.","taxTitle","Spanish, Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",80599,"location","California","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":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6609568,"Council adopts measures to identify and address inactive construction sites, instructs follow-up report",219,4322000,4541000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d&start=4322&end=4541","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d/thumbnail_4322000.jpg","/articles/6609568/California/Council-adopts-measures-to-identify-and-address-inactive-construction-sites-instructs-follow-up-report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6609568-02795c9384bb5f6bd322d22097c6a7c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775649110&Signature=P2fy1PBXXgya6Pz5JdviBDKz79WaQStUbqndX85kjkG30eghVefdddgrtCWazvRvdlnOtOpnFToevZ5MlIX37K6JrcT4aWEJCWQ4uRd4zb5vEOGgGhcLHhx1y7LT2FuVXfu0ms235FIPL3M3A04asPtAwn9eevS572u3SDnGNAUF9iw7T3P48zJS10-sCQ-VP9LW6Q5XTZLrqbAOfP2vgNtx9hbjlxfT0pvTRjLBBiC61LDsH5oFbzESvauFK9cTrz446JpmHm82EZ7NXv98bdIr2olj1ARM5GOYLWwZEluCnRFtq-QXbqurZvIACzUhIC-wjfE9SvW53JMMBRsoEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council adopted a package of measures designed to give the Department of Building and Safety (DBS) tools to identify and address inactive construction sites that are creating safety and nuisance problems, and it asked for a follow-up report with clarifications and recommended definitions.

Councilmember Hernández introduced the item as a response to multiple neighborhood complaints about fire, crime and blight at inactive construction sites. Yoven Mayra, identified in the meeting as the director of community and governmental relations for DBS, described the department’s plan to treat a site as “potentially inactive” if there has been no required inspection activity for six months; permits are generally valid for two years, the staff said. Mayra said the department would investigate reported sites and — if a site is confirmed inactive by criteria to be developed with the City Attorney’s Office — pursue enforcement options including orders to restore the site and referral to the City Attorney for fines or other remedies.

Public commenters from community organizations including Estela López, executive director of a Central Los Angeles community organization, and Claudia Olivar, president of the Central Los Angeles neighborhood council, supported stronger tools. Estela López detailed repeated emergency responses at a burned property and said neighbors had waited nine months for safety conditions to be addressed.

Councilmembers debated potential unintended consequences, such as increasing costs for legitimate construction or requiring developers to post security bonds. Member Román asked whether the proposal would force developers to pay for security at every site; staff clarified the measures were intended to be targeted only to sites reported as potentially inactive and would not automatically impose citywide new bond requirements.

Councilmembers instructed staff to return with a written report that: (1) defines “inactivity” and “progress” for various project types, (2) outlines how DBS will investigate complaints and verify inactivity, (3) describes enforcement steps and financial impacts, and (4) recommends whether the approach should apply to permit extensions. Staff agreed to consult with the City Attorney and to consider limiting options that would raise costs across the board. The council adopted the recommendations with modifications and recorded five votes in favor.

The council did not create a blanket new fee or bond requirement in this meeting; it asked staff for a report that would clarify definitions and financial impacts before any ordinance or fee changes.","Council approved recommendations to identify potentially inactive construction sites (reporting threshold described as six months without a required inspection) and instructed departments to return with implementation details; members sought limits to avoid adding costs for legitimate projects.",{"_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":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6609572,"Council files telecom installation case for 1731 West Colorado Boulevard after lengthy public opposition",813,1500000,2313000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d&start=1500&end=2313","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d/thumbnail_1500000.jpg","/articles/6609572/California/Council-files-telecom-installation-case-for-1731-West-Colorado-Boulevard-after-lengthy-public-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6609572-9c934c444d5e40418ebd2111e67cdc43/orig.mp4?Expires=1775649110&Signature=Xjd1xu9snCrvBoY-g6m8HfL0ZydsxeH1qFNTnc5W0UTzVhk8JCyUBL0RSr9UPIsNUaXmh4ey67Z6546t~3hZdby3TkMLj1NB4zGraKBPZRReAt22lFExKA5CTEnIPvGbDMMia0s7WpTGYRI2Zp0uQxZModJDm3ZR3RAAci9a7TgJcbRSQHBxUPUqg3j2KiRPjfb9dG9QMHn5hdANA-jlXtTo4auuXVReM8dbvEKJMkvIIUmyyyW8nqCF5XiHANCxye0MNE8E70Zkqm2~SqAWV7DzYtGMGmzkrA1CDo2U-ztHlk12a0x0bnd7RL6jBl1q6cMCOm3fpLXnRXCbzd9AQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council voted to file the planning department’s recommendation on a proposed wireless telecommunications installation at 1731 West Colorado Boulevard, a project that drew large turnout from Eagle Rock residents who said they were denied a timely public hearing and that the proposed structure violates the Colorado Boulevard specific plan.

Planning staff described the project as a telecommunications installation within the Colorado Boulevard specific plan area and said the application had a complex history of filings, deficiencies and re-filing dating to 2022. Kevin Padillo, who identified himself as director of planning for Isabel Jurado, summarized federal and state time limits that apply to wireless facilities and said the project had reached a federal “shot clock” stage: “The code of California ... establishes 150 days for jurisdictions to act after a properly filed application,” Padillo said, and he described the city’s internal sequence of hearings and notifications.

Dozens of residents testified during public comment, arguing the project lacked required public hearings, violates the specific-plan height limits and was advanced without adequate neighborhood notice. Speakers including Jessica Weddington McClain, a long-time Eagle Rock resident, told the council the community had been “stolen” of its due process and asked the council to correct the error. Several speakers pointed to the Colorado Boulevard specific plan’s 30-foot height guidance and said the proposed 45-foot installation is inconsistent with that standard.

Verizon’s outside counsel said the legal and administrative process concluded years ago and that federal and state rules limit how long the city may delay action. “This is not something we can continue to litigate in this chamber,” the Verizon counsel said in response to community objections, urging the council to follow the law governing wireless facility review timelines.

Councilmembers discussed the tension between residents’ requests for a new public hearing and the city’s exposure to federal and state shot-clock rules that can compel approval if a jurisdiction does not act within specified time frames. Planning staff and one legal adviser said the federal shot clock is triggered by the date the application was properly filed and that in this case the clock had run; the city’s ability to require additional hearings was therefore limited.

After further discussion and questions from councilmembers, the council voted to file the staff recommendation. The clerk recorded five votes in favor.

The council’s action was procedural: it did not itself modify the specific-plan rules, nor did it direct demolition or construction. The outcome leaves unresolved residents’ requests for a separate hearing and underscores the legal tension between local land-use rules and federal and state timelines for wireless infrastructure applications.","Council chose to file the staff recommendation on a proposed Verizon wireless installation at 1731 West Colorado Boulevard after extended public comment about process, public notice and compatibility with the Colorado Boulevard specific plan. Council cited federal and state shotclock rules limiting the city’s time to act.",{"_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":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6609578,"Council directs report on single-portal BuildL system to streamline development approvals",309,671000,980000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d&start=671&end=980","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2912338-25df294f875ba4561dac09ae8f36bb7d/thumbnail_671000.jpg","/articles/6609578/California/Council-directs-report-on-single-portal-BuildL-system-to-streamline-development-approvals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6609578-767a5544a62f07893232f072629b4852/orig.mp4?Expires=1775649110&Signature=OgnTNbHpqPaJTUOZSPKaH0nGNkkLzvK-yiqB167pXZj8rJkLVG5BQJzVtJNSfwz2CMMHGQqIJUskZoiImi~1ad9aWlZFXSzhLO~~hMtEhpa6OGVhO-~Kw4hRT~LxogLwj1Ux1GNsb~eLVcF5I2cAdPl2qkTfOXjUGLDmF-PZLcKkR42BrAEexR-5kVWrphet5tWmSCFvneRxwQizk9vXDtl3ZO65FfNBiJeK5pc8K65EUnnjPe50cjwMi6kkPPsSeRSPj1JkduASpv6w1tco8tTRXH4O7oydiv0DFPiCq11YwBwW7DAcMghr26mQGGY4-PrBUgE-QwSK204g5nb6sw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council voted unanimously to approve the chief executive office report on a proposed single-portal development application system known in the meeting as BuildL, with instructions that staff return with an evaluative report within 30 days.

Councilmember Braman opened questioning about how the system would change the way applicants submit development applications. Andy Galán, with the Office of City Administration, told the council the portal’s purpose is to allow applicants to enter one set of data that can be shared across participating departments: “The short answer would be yes — this project aims to create a single portal so customers can submit one application and those data can be used by other departments,” Galán said. He added the portal could reduce redundant submittals and allow departments to review concurrently rather than sequentially.

Councilmembers pressed for measurable metrics and for clarity on how the portal would handle interdepartmental disputes and approval order. Galán said departments will continue to monitor their own timing metrics (for example, time-to-approval) and that the portal project includes a multidepartmental portal plus department-specific system improvements. The council asked staff to return with specifics on the metrics each department will use, whether the portal will enable parallel approvals and how the system will flag and resolve conflicting departmental directions.

Councilmember Braman and others requested a written report addressing five points raised during the discussion, including: the specific metrics to evaluate whether BuildL shortens approval time; whether the portal will enable parallel approvals; how the portal will expose and resolve interdepartmental disagreements; which departments are committed to participating; and the project timeline and completion authority. The council set a 30-day deadline for that report and approved the item with those instructions. The vote was recorded as five in favor.

Council members also voiced concern about past citywide technology projects that were incomplete or unevenly adopted; the CIO and individual departments were identified as necessary participants but were not present to provide technical detail during the meeting. Councilmembers asked that the report describe which departments’ metrics will be used and whether participation will be voluntary or required. The council did not authorize funding changes in the meeting; it only approved the CEO report and asked for the follow-up information.

The council’s instruction is intended to give elected members the information they said they need before moving the program forward at the full council level. The next formal step is the staff report the council requested within 30 days.","The City Council asked the CEO’s office for a written report within 30 days on metrics, interdepartmental participation and dispute-resolution processes for BuildL (a single-portal development application system), and approved the item with instructions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves two historic-property nominations; one designation passed on consent, another after extended public comment

Council adopts measures to identify and address inactive construction sites, instructs follow-up report

Council files telecom installation case for 1731 West Colorado Boulevard after lengthy public opposition

Council directs report on single-portal BuildL system to streamline development approvals