Los Angeles City Council approves housing revenue bonds, small ceremonial appropriations and multiple settlement actions

Los Angeles City Council voted on a set of agenda items at its June 2025 meeting, approving an $18,503,750 housing revenue bond for the new construction of a 57‑unit multifamily project, a $1,682.19 ceremonial appropriation and multiple settlement recommendations that had been considered in committee.

The approvals came after the clerk reported that items 1 and 13 through 15, and items 17 and 18 were before the council; a roll call vote recorded 15 ayes. The council also approved a number of closed‑session settlement recommendations that had come through the Budget and Finance Committee earlier in the meeting.

Why it matters: The housing revenue bond is the largest single financial item approved during the vote and will support a 57‑unit multifamily development financed through housing revenue bonds. Several civil litigation settlement recommendations and rejections resolved outstanding claims against the city, moving them from committee recommendation to a final council disposition.

The council counted votes and processed committee recommendations and other routine approvals in quick succession. The clerk read settlement recommendations considered by the Budget and Finance Committee, including recommended expenditures and rejections for a series of cases. That presentation listed recommended settlement ceilings: up to $195,000 (Brandy Menard et al. v. City of Los Angeles), up to $325,000 (Santos Arellano et al. v. Johnny Charles Wilson et al.), up to $575,000 (Bianca Irene Aruci Plasias v. City of Los Angeles), up to $300,000 (Jim Potipan v. City of Los Angeles), up to $1,150,000 (Jesus Sandoval et al. v. City of Los Angeles), up to $150,000 (Mark Sayeng v. Jesus Carrillo Jr. et al.), up to $125,000 (Diana Vigil v. City of Los Angeles), up to $826,000 (Suzanne Carney v. City of Los Angeles), up to $500,000 (Elizabeth Greenwood v. City of Los Angeles), and a recommendation to expend up to $129,405.06 in the case United States of America, ex rel. Meiling and Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. City of Los Angeles. The committee also recommended rejecting several offers of settlement in other listed cases. The council recorded the committee vote result and then voted on those recommendations.

Council business also included a procedural continuation: item 7 — a cannabis program amendment — was continued to June 17 after the city attorney indicated additional work was required on circulating language. The council additionally handled two closed‑session items (28 and 32); item 28’s recommendation to reject a settlement offer was acted on and recorded as approved, and the recommendation tied to item 32, submitted by the PLUM committee, was approved on the floor.

Public comment during the meeting addressed multiple agenda items, including the housing bond, small appropriations and public safety issues. Speakers raised questions about the allocation choices that rely on bonds and about the relative merits of developer‑funded housing versus homeownership subsidies; speakers also urged greater fiscal restraint for small ceremonial expenditures.

What’s next: Item 7 was continued to June 17 for further consideration; other items approved by vote will proceed according to their statutory and administrative timelines for implementation and contracting.