Motions

“____ NC/CC strongly opposes SB 79.  ___ NC/CC has long expressed our crucial concerns about the serious public safety impacts of housing density mandates, including those in SB 79. We further oppose all housing density legislation, including SB 79, that fails to include a clear funding mechanism to support the resulting impact on infrastructure, public safety and municipal services.

“____ NC/CC therefore strongly supports the motion in Council File 25-1083 (Park), which calls for a report back on the impacts of SB 79 on the City of Los Angeles, including an analysis of the costs to update the City’s infrastructure and utility systems to support projected density from SB 79, and a confidential report to City Council on potential legal challenges and bases for cost-recovery from the state.”

“______NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC), strongly supports Council File 25-0848 (Park / Yaroslavsky), calling for (among other things) 1) a report back on the status of the City’s compliance with AB 747, 2) a list and evaluation of evacuation routes within CD 11, and 3) plans to improve evacuation route infrastructure, signage, traffic control and public education.

“______ NC/CC further calls the City Council’s attention to the urgent need for infrastructure funding to absorb the cost of implementing a mitigation plan, including by developing new ingress and egress routes, and calls on the City to proactively and constructively engage with FEMA and OES, by (among other things) expediting completion of the After-Action Reports by the Office of Emergency Management and LAFD, so that those engaged in evacuation planning and disaster response will have the benefit of these findings.”

“The _____ NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC) opposes the two proposed Monorail Options (Alternative 1 and Alternative 3) due to their significantly lower ridership projections and lower capacities, and their significantly slower speeds and longer travel times, and supports the proposed underground Heavy Rail subway mode of transportation through the Sepulveda Pass because it will carry significantly more passengers than the proposed Monorail mode of transportation. The Heavy Rail mode of transportation is described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, released by Metro on June 2, 2025, in the discussion of Alternatives 4, 5 and 6.”

“The State of California has enacted a series of housing-related bills aimed at increasing residential density in cities and municipalities statewide, including SB 9, SB 10, and others.  While the stated intent of these bills is to address the statewide housing crisis, implementation of these measures often places significant burdens on local government without providing the necessary infrastructure, services, or fiscal support.  These mandates frequently override local planning authority, diminish the ability of cities to tailor land use to their unique needs and capacities, and strain existing infrastructure and funding resources.

“_______ NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC), therefore:

“1) requests that our elected state officials take steps to initiate a pause on all enacted legislation that provides for statewide housing density and/or streamlining mandates, unless and until clear funding mechanisms are identified and enacted to accompany the legislation, in order to support the resulting impact on infrastructure, public safety, and municipal services; and

“2) opposes any pending and future legislation that proposes statewide housing density and/or streamlining mandates, unless clear funding mechanisms are identified to accompany any such bills, in order to support the resulting impact on infrastructure, public safety, and municipal services.

“The imposition of increased density — without accompanying state funding or resource allocation — exacerbates existing challenges, particularly in areas vulnerable to wildfire, evacuation constraints, and other environmental or geographic hazards, such as the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, Flood Zones or other environmentally sensitive locations as determined by local governments throughout the state.”

““The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC), strongly supports CF 20-1376-S5 (Park), which calls for certain amendments of LAMC Sec. 41.18 and a report back by the City Attorney on the feasibility of amending 41.18 to prohibit encampments as per the Governor’s model ordinance.”

“_______NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of  Councils (WRAC), urges Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to immediately consent to a full audit of the City’s Inside Safe program by Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia.”

“_______NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC), urges Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and/or the City Administrative Officer Matthew Szabo to disclose the full extent of all sources of funding for the City’s Inside Safe program.”

“_____ NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC), opposes Council File 22-1154-S1 and the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the interactive digital kiosk program, because it would:

“1) allow installation of hundreds of 8 to 9 foot tall two-sided digital advertising kiosks on sidewalks through the City, which WRAC previously opposed in January 2023  (https://westsidecouncils.com/wp–content/uploads/2022/11/WRAC–Letter–re–IKE–program.pdf), and

“2) directly compete with, and undermine, the success of the City’s Sidewalk and Transit Amenities Program (STAP) and other community benefit programs that the City and its transit riders rely upon to provide much-needed shade, shelter, transit information and public service announcements.”

  “_____ NC/CC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC), supports banning all classes of e-bicycles (e-bikes) from riding on a sidewalk or a boardwalk in the City  of Los Angeles, to address serious public safety concerns and reports of rising accidents, injuries and deaths from collisions between e-bikes and pedestrians.

“To accomplish this objective, _____ NC/CC supports the Los Angeles City Council passing, and the Mayor approving, an ordinance updating Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 56.15.  BICYCLE RIDING – SIDEWALKS to read (additions in italics/underlined):

“1.   No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, unicycle, skateboard, cart, wagon, wheelchair, roller skates, or any other device moved exclusively by human power, on a sidewalk, bikeway or boardwalk in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.                  (Amended by Ord. No. 166,189, Eff. 10/7/90.) No person shall ride, operate or use any class of electric bicycle (e-bike) on a sidewalk or boardwalk in the City of Los Angeles. (Amended by a new Ordinance passed by the LA City Council.)

“2.   No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, electric bicycle (e-bike) or unicycle on Ocean  Front Walk between Marine Street and Via Marina within the City of Los Angeles, except that bicycle, electric bicycle (e-bike) or unicycle riding shall be permitted along the bicycle path adjacent to Ocean Front Walk between Marine Street and Washington Boulevard.(Amended by Ord. No. 153,474, Eff. 4/12/80.)  (Amended by a new Ordinance passed by the LA City Council.)

“3.   No person shall operate on a beach bicycle path, or on an area of a beach which is set aside for bicycle, electric bicycle (e-bike) or unicycle use, any bicycle, electric bicycle (e-bike) or tricycle which provides for side-by-side seating thereon or which has affixed thereto any              attachment or appendage which protrudes from the side of the bicycle, electric bicycle (e-bike) or tricycle and is used or designed to carry another person or persons thereon. (Amended by a new Ordinance passed by the LA City Council.)  

  “_____ NC/CC further requests that Councilmembers representing WRAC member councils (Park, Yaroslavsky, Hutt and/or Raman) bring a motion in Council requesting amendment of Municipal Code Sec. 56.15 as set forth above.”