Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Safe Streets Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney presents draft ordinance to implement ‘Safe Streets’ measures; committee seeks equity and school-guarding details
Summary
A city attorney report and draft ordinance to amend the Los Angeles Administrative Code and Municipal Code for implementing Safe Streets measures (agenda item 0.15) was presented; committee members questioned methodology, equity impacts and school crossing-guard coverage and sought an accelerated timeline before the school year.
The City Attorney presented a report dated May 28, 2025 and a draft ordinance (agenda item 0.15) to amend the Los Angeles Administrative Code and Los Angeles Municipal Code to establish administrative processes for implementing the city’s Safe Streets measures.
Committee members asked about the ordinance’s methodology, its infrastructure and equity components, and whether the committee could complete work on the item before the start of the next school year. A staff speaker described methodology elements related to infrastructure prioritization, equity and how crossing-guard coverage is factored into the Safe Streets program.
Jennifer Fiscal (identified in the transcript as a staff speaker) told the committee there are 32 crossing guards assigned to schools in her district and that staffing and reassignments can change year to year. Members asked whether staff could identify which schools lose guard hours in a given year and how the prioritization methodology would reassign resources; staff said corners and intersections would be reprioritized and that an inventory of targeted schools and intersections would be included in the implementation work.
Committee members emphasized the need for an analysis parents could understand about changes to crossing-guard assignments and asked staff to provide clear explanations of equity impacts and infrastructure choices. One member asked whether certain enforcement or vehicle-removal processes could be affected by civil litigation; staff replied that civil litigation could constrain some practices (transcript phrase: “no puede ser importado para poder avanzar con litigios civiles … decomise ese vehículo hasta que la próxima persona pague las multas de tránsito”).
The committee did not adopt the draft ordinance at the meeting; members indicated a desire to advance the work over the summer and asked staff to return with specifics on methodology, equity analysis, a list of schools and intersections targeted for improvements, and how crossing-guard staffing and hours would be preserved or reprioritized.
