Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Safety Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts measures to identify and address inactive construction sites, instructs follow-up report
Summary
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.
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.
