[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,74,86],{"_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":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6510569,"mediaKeyId","5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9","parentId",5371090,"title","Council keeps Mulholland Scenic Corridor intact under South Valley planning commission after close vote","audioSeconds",11613,"startMs",938000,"endMs",12551000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9&start=938&end=12551","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9/thumbnail_938000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6510569/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-keeps-Mulholland-Scenic-Corridor-intact-under-South-Valley-planning-commission-after-close-vote","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510569-e7531c970333cc6114fadbd13738b3a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183129&Signature=OHS8eocih-XZZ9s~GTihvYxcTzx4OonbqXOU1~EfEGJrR2VW0wUDKbg-NfeVBIekwExvlgiYSVdi-xkHiNv36fp~noSAXh2K7-ft4YmsYCiQz3ase9B0uNspx2pp9Xb4OjPsGse6DUYLOgTYl8yHMwMJ2dA-qN1X6xdZtHOz2wj9vx9lTMzzzN4jOcggU9re0W3qKBOS-Ez1lqBCgheWeJAadhNjR0mG7HHZROqxtO8Ur0dSpbFnHn5PFPCQxebKU5AEu2f8HchwT198c6gCUv8h8UtaRwAgS9Mll4Z1GmCRRZMBbcTH7NiuoNGapAH4QrxYlMzIrElaPKudsSdQog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-11T16:00:52Z","article","The Los Angeles City Council voted to place the Mulholland Scenic Corridor under the South Valley Area Planning Commission after a contested committee debate and public comment from neighborhood and conservation groups.

A proposed substitute motion to place the corridor in the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission failed on a 6‑7 roll call. The council then approved the majority planning committee recommendation to keep the corridor in the South Valley APC, 12‑1.

What the debate was about
The question before the council was which of the new area planning commissions should handle appeals, design review board appeals and other planning cases arising under the Mulholland Scenic Corridor specific plan. Supporters of placing the corridor in the West LA APC argued keeping the corridor’s oversight with a single Westside commission would keep the Santa Monica Mountains backbone and Mulholland‑adjacent neighborhoods together in one planning area. Opponents (the majority committee position) urged placement in the South Valley APC because the bulk of current casework and staff activity was located in the valley side, making that APC the pragmatic choice for case load and operations.

Evidence and reasoning cited
- Staff and committee figures cited by the planning department showed the corridor’s land and case activity split roughly 54% South Valley, 35% West, and 11% Central; appeals data presented noted recent appeals had been concentrated on the South Valley side.
- Supporters of the West LA placement argued the corridor functions as a single geographical and environmental feature (the Santa Monica Mountains) and listed endorsement letters from neighborhood associations and conservation groups urging placement in West LA APC.

Council action and votes
- Substitute motion to place corridor in West Los Angeles APC: failed, 6 ayes, 7 noes.
- Majority report (place corridor in South Valley APC; keep corridor intact as single planning unit but handled by South Valley APC staff): passed, 12 ayes, 1 no.

Quotes
\"We think that the Mulholland Corridor is basically the backbone of the hillside neighborhood of the Santa Monica Mountains, and we believe that putting it in the West LA Area Planning Commission will keep the corridor and the hillside neighborhoods intact as one planning area,\" Barry Reed, executive director of Mulholland Tomorrow, told the council.

Clarifying details
- Planning department staff gave a breakdown of planning area distribution: approximately 35% West, 11% Central, 54% South Valley in terms of land/caseload metrics cited to the council.
- Appeals volume for the specific plan over the recent period was small (the department said roughly four appeals in the year cited), but most were located on the South Valley side.

Next steps
The city planning department will implement the APC placement as decided and will monitor caseloads. The council and departments may revisit APC boundaries and an overlay approach in future reviews; several councilmembers suggested a two‑year follow‑up on how the area planning commissions function.

Speakers
- Bob Locker — Pacific Palisades Residents Association / Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations (community groups) [first reference: 7002.14]
- Barry Reed — Executive Director, Mulholland Tomorrow (nonprofit) [first reference: 7003.5]
- Joan Lux — community member (citizen) [first reference: 7145.85]
- Susan Nelson — Topanga State Park representative (citizen/park advocate) [first reference: 7251.67]
- Councilmember Peggy (name from transcript: Goldberg) — moved minority report originally; Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski moved minority and later seconded (transcript shows councilmembers debating; vote recorded)

Authorities
- planning: Mulholland Scenic Corridor specific plan (referenced_by:[\"actions\"])

Actions
- motion: \"Place Mulholland Scenic Corridor under the South Valley Area Planning Commission per the majority planning committee report.\"
mover: Majority planning committee (moved in council by committee representative)
vote_record: [{\"tally\":{\"yes\":12,\"no\":1}}]
outcome: \"approved\"
notes: \"Substitute to place the corridor in West LA APC failed 6‑7; majority report passed. Implementation to be monitored by planning department.\"

Clarifying_details:[{\"category\":\"caseload_distribution\",\"detail\":\"Planning department cited roughly 54% of land/caseload in South Valley, 35% West, 11% Central\",\"value\":54,\"units\":\"percent\",\"approximate\":true,\"source_speaker\":\"Planning staff\"},{\"category\":\"appeals_volume\",\"detail\":\"Recent appeals under the specific plan were small in number (approx. four) and concentrated on the South Valley side\",\"approximate\":true,\"source_speaker\":\"Planning staff\"}]

proper_names:[{\"name\":\"Mulholland Scenic Corridor\",\"type\":\"location\"},{\"name\":\"Mulholland Tomorrow\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"Pacific Palisades Residents Association\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"Topanga State Park\",\"type\":\"location\"}]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"6947.68\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":64,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Thank you. I'm representing, Pacific Palisades Residents Association and, the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations. And, we support the, the the Mulholland Scenic Corridor going into the West Los Angeles, area planning commission zone.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"8282.035\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":26,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"12 ayes, 1 no.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}

topics:[{\"name\":\"planning-mulholland\",\"justification\":\"Primary topic: decision about which area planning commission will oversee the Mulholland Scenic Corridor specific plan; significant for hillside planning and appeals handling.\",\"scoring\":{\"topic_relevance\":1.00,\"depth_score\":0.70,\"opinionatedness\":0.10,\"controversy\":0.60,\"civic_salience\":0.55,\"impactfulness\":0.50,\"geo_relevance\":1.00}}],

searchable_tags:[\"Mulholland\",\"area-planning-commission\",\"hillside-protection\",\"specific-plan\"],

\"sections\":{\"lede\":\"The City Council voted to place the Mulholland Scenic Corridor under the South Valley Area Planning Commission after rejecting a substitute to move oversight to the West Los Angeles APC.\",\"nut_graf\":\"Planning staff and the majority of the planning committee recommended the South Valley APC because the majority of current casework and staff activity arises on the valley side; proponents of West LA APC argued for keeping the corridor under a single Westside commission to preserve continuity.\",\"ending\":\"The planning department will implement the APC placement and monitor caseloads; councilmembers suggested a follow‑up review of APC boundaries and potential overlay approaches.\"},

\"speakers\":[{\"name\":\"Bob Locker\",\"role_title\":\"Representative\",\"affiliation_type\":\"nonprofit\",\"affiliation_name\":\"Pacific Palisades Residents Association / Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations\",\"first_reference\":{\"timecode\":\"01:56:47\",\"transcript_line_range\":[7002,7006]}},{\"name\":\"Barry Reed\",\"role_title\":\"Executive Director\",\"affiliation_type\":\"nonprofit\",\"affiliation_name\":\"Mulholland Tomorrow\",\"first_reference\":{\"timecode\":\"01:56:48\",\"transcript_line_range\":[7003,7008]}},{\"name\":\"Joan Lux\",\"role_title\":\"Community member\",\"affiliation_type\":\"citizen\",\"affiliation_name\":\"not specified\",\"first_reference\":{\"timecode\":\"01:58:45\",\"transcript_line_range\":[7145,7150]}},{\"name\":\"Susan Nelson\",\"role_title\":\"Representative\",\"affiliation_type\":\"citizen\",\"affiliation_name\":\"Topanga State Park\",\"first_reference\":{\"timecode\":\"02:00:51\",\"transcript_line_range\":[7251,7256]}},{\"name\":\"Councilmember Peggy Goldberg\",\"role_title\":\"Councilmember\",\"affiliation_type\":\"government\",\"affiliation_name\":\"Los Angeles City Council\",\"first_reference\":{\"timecode\":\"01:58:59\",\"transcript_line_range\":[7543,7547]}}],

\"authorities\":[{\"type\":\"other\",\"name\":\"Mulholland Scenic Corridor specific plan\",\"citation\":\"Mulholland specific plan (city planning documents)\",\"referenced_by\":[\"actions\"]}],

\"actions\":[{\"kind\":\"other\",\"identifiers\":{\"agenda_item_id\":\"17\",\"project_slug\":\"mulholland-apc-placement\"},\"motion\":\"Place Mulholland Scenic Corridor under the South Valley Area Planning Commission (majority planning committee recommendation)\",\"mover\":\"Majority planning committee\",\"second\":\"not specified\",\"vote_record\":[{\"member\":\"Councilmembers (roll)\",\"member_id\":\"not_resolved\",\"seat\":\"not specified\",\"vote\":\"yes\"}],\"tally\":{\"yes\":12,\"no\":1,\"abstain\":0,\"absent\":0,\"recused\":0},\"legal_threshold\":{\"required\":\"simple_majority\",\"met\":true,\"notes\":\"Substitute motion to place corridor in West LA APC failed 6‑7 prior to this vote.\"},\"outcome\":\"approved\",\"notes\":\"Planning department to implement APC assignment and monitor caseload.\"}],

\"discussion_decision\":{\"discussion_points\":[\"Whether corridor oversight should reflect physical geography (Santa Monica Mountains continuity) or practical caseload/staffing (where most cases originate).\",\"Caseload data and appeals history shown to council; letters from community groups urged West LA placement.\"],\"directions\":[\"Planning department to implement assignment to South Valley APC and report back on functioning of area planning commissions.\"],\"decisions\":[\"Approved majority report to place Mulholland in South Valley APC.\"]},

\"clarifying_details\":[{\"category\":\"caseload_distribution\",\"detail\":\"Planning department cited roughly 54% of land/caseload in South Valley, 35% West, 11% Central\",\"value\":54,\"units\":\"percent\",\"approximate\":true,\"source_speaker\":\"planning staff\"},{\"category\":\"appeals_volume\",\"detail\":\"Appeals volume small (approx. four appeals) and concentrated in South Valley during the review period\",\"approximate\":true,\"source_speaker\":\"planning staff\"}],

\"proper_names\":[{\"name\":\"Mulholland Scenic Corridor\",\"type\":\"location\"},{\"name\":\"Mulholland Tomorrow\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"Pacific Palisades Residents Association\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"Topanga State Park\",\"type\":\"location\"}],

\"community_relevance\":{\"geographies\":[\"Santa Monica Mountains\",\"Westside\",\"San Fernando Valley\"],\"funding_sources\":[],\"impact_groups\":[\"hillside residents\",\"park visitors\",\"developers\"]},

\"meeting_context\":{\"engagement_level\":{\"speakers_count\":12,\"duration_minutes\":120,\"items_count\":1},\"implementation_risk\":\"low\",\"history\":[{\"date\":\"1999-02-01\",\"note\":\"Item considered by planning committee; multiple public meetings held across the city.\"}]},

\"searchable_tags\":[\"Mulholland\",\"APC\",\"hillside-protection\",\"planning\"]}]}],","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Regular City Council - 03/22/00","oneSentenceSummary","The council rejected a proposal to place the Mulholland Scenic Corridor under the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission and instead approved the planning committee majority recommendation to include it in the South Valley APC, a decision driven by caseload geography and staff recommendations.","taxTitle","Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4025,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6510574,"Council awards Convention Center custodial contract to Pettus after contested hearing; opponents cite procurement and living‑wage concerns",4967,5784000,10751000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9&start=5784&end=10751","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9/thumbnail_5784000.jpg","/articles/6510574/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-awards-Convention-Center-custodial-contract-to-Pettus-after-contested-hearing-opponents-cite-procurement-and-livingwage-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510574-fde739aca7eb8a11668866d4f9057838/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183129&Signature=gG3A~G89ftoaMDWEiYXB8tadNd39jZJpmhbwIWPzwIHnh2r6UgVVY1zgTvsLiA5tV5LNoibbsShg7q3pvk1F9Af8znyXb4hUnxXMXSlRmdnXinpueHxQ87nmR1M196fyjRoDOMpfvIUyix1h~-4n7Ddh6iVzRPvB9YHeSA6vtKzq6J0OQvE9usN3G6dbDWmV~31yDuF31-~1PcqYwzCDjnMWx5YyYk~ndRF1-NNOgjx6OjAza3h90z2rHQlaIIVxg43NcfHrdkF1x~WPMueZ1pLmdI7Tbr0Resu7d6-xTOyCISz~WQ~RaysjvtBaEeDxYQPUjy8Mt~XzKm19nUSYqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council approved the personnel committee’s recommendation to award the Los Angeles Convention Center custodial services contract to Pettus Building Services after a public hearing that featured competing testimony from the incumbent contractor and labor advocates.

The council approved the award on a roll call, 11 ayes to 2 noes. Opponents argued the procurement process disadvantaged the incumbent, Expert Development Services, and raised concerns about living‑wage compliance and contract scoring. Supporters of Pettus emphasized its experience with large facilities and a collective bargaining arrangement that would provide a living wage and benefits for workers.

What the council decided
The Council adopted the personnel committee recommendation to award the custodial contract to Pettus Building Services. The committee had considered procurement materials and supplemental briefings and heard testimony from both the incumbent and the recommended contractor.

Contested points at the hearing
- Incumbent concerns: Representatives for Expert Development Services said the company had provided decades of service at the Convention Center and presented letters of appreciation from building management. Expert’s counsel and consultant said the evaluation process was “tainted” because Pettus received higher interview scores despite Expert’s prior favorable performance and argued the procurement did not compare equipment lists and other specifics consistently.
- Living‑wage and compliance: Council members heard conflicting statements on whether the incumbent was paying the adopted living wage. Department staff said the incumbent had been notified about living‑wage compliance and that the department was working to resolve administrative notification issues; the incumbent’s representative said they corrected wages once notified.
- Cost differential: Debate over bid costs featured differing figures during the hearing. The department explained the recommended contractor’s bid exceeded the incumbent’s by roughly $375,000 over three years (department estimate); opponents cited a larger number in public comments. Councilmembers noted that lowest price does not necessarily yield lowest life‑cycle or program costs and pointed to risk and performance factors.

Labor and contractor testimony
Pettus representatives said the company has experience cleaning high‑traffic facilities including airport terminals and major hospitals, and it is signatory to a local SEIU master agreement that would provide wage and benefit protections for employees. SEIU Local 18 77 representatives supported Pettus, saying the agreement would secure wages, health care and pension benefits and provide grievance procedures.

Council response and vote
Personnel committee chair Councilmember (name on record) presented the committee report and a motion to adopt the recommendation; the council voted 11‑2 to approve the award. Councilmember comments indicated concern about scrutiny of procurement but ultimately acceptance of the committee and staff evaluation and the offered labor protections.

Quote
\"Pettus prides itself in providing superior service at a fair price, while adhering to the highest ethical and legal standards,\" a Pettus representative told the council during the hearing.

Clarifying details
- Procurement staff reported the bid differential between the top proposers was roughly $375,000 over three years (department figure); opponents cited a larger figure in oral remarks.
- Department staff reported verifying Pettus’s references and experience at large facilities (examples cited: airport terminals and county hospitals).
- Living‑wage compliance: department staff said they had notified the incumbent of a living‑wage concern and that Expert Development has since adjusted wages in response to the notice (incumbent disputed timing of notification).

Next steps
The contract award was approved and the council instructed the bureau to implement the award consistent with contract and living‑wage rules. Personnel committee and department staff said they would develop a protocol with labor for future procurement clarity.

Speakers
- Charles Chung / Expert Development Services — incumbent contractor president (business) [first reference: 9851.375]
- David Cunningham — representative for Expert Development Services (consultant/advocate) [first reference: 9862.381]
- John Smitsack — Clean Source (supplier/distributor) (business) [first reference: 10231.195]
- Pettus representative — (name not specified in transcript) — Pettus Building Services (recommended contractor) (business) [first reference: 10385.89]
- Byron Moret — SEIU Local 18 77 (labor) (union) [first reference: 10467.05]
- Noel Williams — senior management analyst (department staff) (government) [first reference: 11976.605]

Authorities
- procurement: City procurement/RFP process and personnel committee review (referenced_by:[\"actions\"])

Actions
- motion: \"Approve award of the Convention Center custodial services contract to Pettus Building Services per personnel committee recommendation.\"
mover: Personnel committee (moved in council by Councilmember present in committee)
second: not specified
vote_record: [{\"tally\":{\"yes\":11,\"no\":2}}]
outcome: \"approved\"
notes: \"Council accepted personnel committee recommendation after public hearing; committee also requested protocol development with union and bureau to avoid future disputes.\"

Clarifying_details:[{\"category\":\"bid_differential\",\"detail\":\"Department reported recommended bidder exceeded incumbent by roughly $375,000 over three years; opponents cited larger numbers in oral remarks\",\"value\":375000,\"units\":\"USD\",\"approximate\":true,\"source_speaker\":\"Noel Williams\"},{\"category\":\"living_wage_compliance\",\"detail\":\"Department notified incumbent of living wage issue and reported subsequent wage adjustments; incumbent said notification timing created confusion\",\"source_speaker\":\"Noel Williams\"}]

proper_names:[{\"name\":\"Los Angeles Convention Center\",\"type\":\"facility\"},{\"name\":\"Pettus Building Services\",\"type\":\"business\"},{\"name\":\"Expert Development Services\",\"type\":\"business\"},{\"name\":\"SEIU Local 18 77\",\"type\":\"organization\"}]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"9744.931\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":83,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"George Reyk as a convention center. We're requesting approval of, the, item 1 1 36, I believe, in regards to the, what is it? The exemption from city service, I'm sorry, for city employees. We are requesting approval of the custodial service contract that was awarded to Pettus Building Services...\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"12249.71\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":36,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"11 ayes, 2 nos.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]}

topics:[{\"name\":\"contracts-convention-center\",\"justification\":\"Primary topic: contested award of a major custodial contract and public testimony about procurement, living wage, and labor protections.\",\"scoring\":{\"topic_relevance\":1.00,\"depth_score\":0.85,\"opinionatedness\":0.10,\"controversy\":0.85,\"civic_salience\":0.60,\"impactfulness\":0.55,\"geo_relevance\":1.00}}],

searchable_tags:[\"convention-center\",\"custodial-contract\",\"procurement\",\"living-wage\",\"Pettus\",\"Expert-Development\"]
","After contested public comment from the incumbent minority firm and its supporters, the council approved the Convention Center custodial services award to Pettus Building Services (personnel committee recommendation). Opponents raised questions about the scoring process, bid differentials and living‑wage compliance.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6510578,"Los Angeles council approves first reading of tougher spay‑neuter and breeders permit rules after extended public hearing",5239,1491000,6730000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9&start=1491&end=6730","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5371090-29e677774ee177a205fd78f0c214b6a9/thumbnail_1491000.jpg","/articles/6510578/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Los-Angeles-council-approves-first-reading-of-tougher-spayneuter-and-breeders-permit-rules-after-extended-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510578-e79874593c87e3036e2825ab5d41524b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771183129&Signature=XLRXUtt91pMHHJKznolNKH4CGyk3Oy5yhoaY0bH-RJdK-bJvXoG4mmKj5TBF1ur7t5ucDmVoUMgN~5TA1M99X-u13X6K3dCnp~My1PhtkgL6~KmShlKjS-1MPUC0b0PXOeE9FpzkTHaIRPm37Sv0EIYXLNTmfmcyPHCka8xF4QdX7HVfWNCMF29UHSJfAuiCOTUW6Sn-3x3HEBvm5LImQqKXgDvjqVsO9NEd3e-52aW6oYRUVsz-H135b0R6vASX67pUW61nnYe2SPYYxOsLV7GwRryUtWGoHSMHI48dhjZmU9mHIWnHgSPXvfFVRHBi1o4iXhuBPxj8mSjWnhE47w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council voted to give first reading to amendments that raise the fee on unaltered dogs and cats and increase the cost of breeders' permits, after a lengthy public hearing that drew hundreds of speakers for and against the measure.

Councilmembers adopted the ordinances on first reading, 10 to 3, after rejecting a separate amendment that would have made the ordinances expire on June 30, 2003 (the sunset amendment failed 6‑7).

The amendments before the council would (as described by Department of Animal Services staff and the City’s animal regulation commission) raise the annual license for an unaltered dog from $30 to $100 and increase the breeders' permit from $50 to $100. The Commission and department said the $100 threshold was chosen because most subsidized spay/neuter surgeries are available in the city for less than $100, creating a price incentive for owners to alter animals instead of paying the higher fee.

Why it matters: City officials and supporters said the changes are intended to reduce stray animals, lower euthanasia rates in shelters and improve public safety — especially the number of dog‑bite incidents affecting children. Opponents, including breeders' groups and several kennel and cat fancier organizations, argued the ordinance would unfairly penalize responsible hobby and professional breeders and could drive some breeders out of the city.

What the ordinance does and enforcement procedure
- The Department of Animal Services' presentation said the package reduces certain penalties from criminal to civil remedial steps, adds a graduated compliance process and retains the ability to pursue misdemeanor charges only as a last resort.
- According to department testimony, the compliance process would begin with a 45‑day warning and resource packet pointing owners to subsidized spay/neuter providers. If there is no compliance within the follow‑up period, a 15‑day final warning would be issued before a civil penalty of up to $500 is assessed; continued noncompliance could then be referred for misdemeanor enforcement.
- The draft also clarifies that the outdoor‑cats requirement applies to all outdoor cats (the commission requested that specific wording change).

Supporters’ arguments and commitments
Supporters — including rescuers, nonprofit sterilization programs and veterinary associations — urged the council to act and described additional resources that would help implementation. Susan Taylor, executive director of Actors and Others for Animals, told the council her group would pledge an additional $50,000 in spay/neuter subsidies targeted to low‑income areas if the ordinance is adopted. Representatives from other rescue and veterinary organizations described plans for mobile clinics and subsidized surgeries aimed at neighborhoods of greatest need.

Opponents’ arguments
Opponents including the Cat Fanciers Association and several local kennel and breeder clubs said the measure would burden responsible breeders and private owners whose animals are rarely implicated in shelter admissions. Speakers raised evidence from other jurisdictions where differentials or breeders' fees produced mixed results, and urged the council to rely on more spay/neuter services and enforcement of existing leash laws rather than new fees.

Council debate and amendment votes
- Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski (chair of the Public Safety Committee) presented the commission's recommended package and moved the communication recommending approval. Councilmember Mark Ridley‑Thomas led sustained support for the ordinance, repeatedly citing shelter statistics and the public safety risk to children.
- Councilmember Pacheco proposed a sunset amendment (13a) to allow the council to reevaluate the policy by June 30, 2003. That amendment failed on a roll call, 6 ayes to 7 noes.
- The council then approved the ordinance as recommended by the commission on first reading, 10 ayes to 3 noes. The item was approved as first reading only and was scheduled for second reading and final adoption one week later.

Numbers and program details discussed in the hearing
- Department of Animal Services reported figures to the council that included a cited reduction in stray‑dog counts (described as a reduction from 44,000 to 26,000 in department testimony) and a shelter euthanasia rate described in testimony as 74 percent historically for some intakes; speakers disputed or contextualized those numbers.
- The commission and department said they would add 6 animal‑control officers for enforcement and would rely on spay/neuter subsidy programs and canvassing to increase license compliance.

Quote
“It's an incentive, not a punitive measure,” Dan Knapp, general manager of the Department of Animal Services, said in his presentation. “If an individual is not in compliance, our officers will give them a warning and point them to the resources.”

Next steps
The ordinance passed first reading and will return to the council for second reading and final adoption the following week. The department committed to report back with implementation details, outreach plans and anticipated effects at an 18‑month review, and the council rejected an explicit sunset amendment that would have automatically repealed the ordinance on a set date.

Votes at a glance
- Amendment 13a (sunset to 06/30/2003): failed, 6 ayes, 7 noes.
- Ordinance (first reading, breeders‑permit and licensing amendments): approved (first reading), 10 ayes, 3 noes.

Speakers
- Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski — Public Safety Committee chair (government) [first reference: 3526.4302]
- Councilmember Mark Ridley‑Thomas — Councilmember (government) [first reference: 3858.2048]
- Dan Knapp — General Manager, Department of Animal Services (government) [first reference: 2995.835]
- Pam Wilkinson — Resident (citizen) [first reference: 1599.5599]
- Lila Brooks — Director, California Wildlife Defenders (nonprofit) [first reference: 1659.6799]
- Susan Taylor — Executive Director, Actors and Others for Animals (nonprofit) [first reference: 1749.1599]
- Terry Austin — President, The Amanda Foundation (nonprofit) [first reference: 1932.5399]
- Joanna Zapian — Pet owner / speaker (citizen) [first reference: 2022.12]
- Erica Bronson — Coalition for Pets and Public Safety (nonprofit) [first reference: 2072.32]
- Dr. Julianne Ryan Johnson — President, Southern California Veterinary Medical Association (professional association) [first reference: 2229.535]
- Mary de Blasio — Legislative advocate, California Federation of Dog Clubs (advocate group) [first reference: 2466.6501]
- Charles Olber — Speaker opposing ordinance (citizen/advocate) [first reference: 2320.19]

Authorities
- ordinance: Breeders permit and dog licensing amendments (Municipal code references discussed during presentation) (referenced_by:[\"actions\"])

Actions
- motion: “Adopt ordinance amendments to increase fees for unaltered dog licenses and breeders permits and adopt associated compliance and enforcement steps (first reading).”
mover: Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski
second: not specified
vote_record: [{\"tally\":{\"yes\":10,\"no\":3}}]
outcome: \"ordinance_first_reading\"
notes: \"Approved on first reading; second reading scheduled one week later; 18‑month department review expected.\"

Clarifying details
- fee_increase: unaltered pet license proposed to increase from $30 to $100 (source: Dan Knapp presentation)
- breeders_permit: proposed increase from $50 to $100 (source: Dan Knapp presentation)
- compliance_timeline: 45 days warning, 15 day final notice before a civil penalty of up to $500 (source: Dan Knapp presentation)
- subsidy_pledge: Actors and Others for Animals pledged an additional $50,000 in spay/neuter subsidies if ordinance adopted (source: Susan Taylor)
- department_staffing: council approved additional animal control officers in prior budget for enforcement (discussed by councilmembers)

proper_names:[{\"name\":\"Department of Animal Services\",\"type\":\"agency\"},{\"name\":\"Actors and Others for Animals\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"Amanda Foundation\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"California Wildlife Defenders\",\"type\":\"organization\"},{\"name\":\"Southern California Veterinary Medical Association\",\"type\":\"organization\"}]

provenance:{\"transcript_segments\":[{\"block_id\":\"1491.48\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":76,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Item, members of the council, we have a lot of cards. Mister miss Sekowsky, has there been a public hearing on this?\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"},{\"block_id\":\"6721.47\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":86,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"That is approved, but it's only first reading. It goes over 1 week, and we'll be back for a second reading a week from today.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}]},

topics:[{\"name\":\"animal-control-spay-neuter\",\"justification\":\"Primary topic: public hearing and council action on spay/neuter and breeders permit ordinance; extensive testimony and votes.\",\"scoring\":{\"topic_relevance\":1.00,\"depth_score\":0.95,\"opinionatedness\":0.05,\"controversy\":0.90,\"civic_salience\":0.85,\"impactfulness\":0.70,\"geo_relevance\":1.00}}],

searchable_tags:[\"spay-neuter\",\"breeders-permit\",\"animal-services\",\"public-safety\",\"living-wage\",\"Los-Angeles\"]
","After a multi‑hour public hearing with competing testimony from animal‑welfare groups and breeders, the Los Angeles City Council approved on first reading a pair of ordinance amendments to increase unaltered‑pet licensing fees and raise breeders' permit costs and enforcement steps; a proposed sunset amendment failed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council keeps Mulholland Scenic Corridor intact under South Valley planning commission after close vote

Council awards Convention Center custodial contract to Pettus after contested hearing; opponents cite procurement and living‑wage concerns

Los Angeles council approves first reading of tougher spay‑neuter and breeders permit rules after extended public hearing