SUBJECT: Traci Park’s Motion Violates LAMC 41.18(c)(4)
TO: councilmember.hutt@lacity.org, Councilmember.Yaroslavsky@lacity.org, councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org, contactcd4@lacity.org, councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org, councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org, Councilmember.Blumenfield@lacity.org, councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org, councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org, councilmember.nazarian@lacity.org, councilmember.mcosker@lacity.org, councilmember.park@lacity.org, Councilmember.Lee@lacity.org, councilmember.padilla@lacity.org, councilmember.price@lacity.org, councilmemeber.jurado@lacity.org
Los Angeles City Councilmembers:
I urge you to oppose Council File 26-4118-S7, a resolution designating seven locations in Council District 11 as LAMC 41.18(c)(4) enforcement zones, scheduled for a vote on August 4. This resolution does not comply with the plain text of the ordinance it invokes, and adopting it as written would exceed the Council’s authority under its own Municipal Code.
The statutory standard
LAMC 41.18(c)(4) does not give the Council unlimited discretion to designate any location it chooses. It imposes specific, mandatory prerequisites:
“In order to designate a section of street, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way as prohibited under this subdivision, the City Council shall determine, in a designating resolution and based on specific documentation, that the circumstances of continued sitting, sleeping, lying, storing personal property, or otherwise obstructing the public right-of-way at that location poses a particular and ongoing threat to public health or safety.”
The ordinance then enumerates the kind of circumstances that can support that finding: death or serious bodily injury at the location due to a hazardous condition; repeated serious or violent crimes, including human trafficking, at the location; or fires that resulted in an LAFD response at the location. The word “shall” establishes a mandatory duty, and the two-part test it creates is conjunctive: (1) a finding of a “particular and ongoing threat” (2) that is “based on specific documentation.” A resolution that fails either part does not satisfy 41.18(c)(4), regardless of how it is captioned.
How CF 26-4118-S7 fails this test
- No documentation is in the record. The resolution states that CD11 “has submitted / posted to the File relevant documentation” showing a particular and ongoing threat. No such documentation is attached to the resolution, summarized in it, or otherwise identified in the public Council File. A bare assertion that documentation exists somewhere is not documentation. The ordinance requires the finding to be “based on” specific documentation, meaning the documentation has to actually support the finding on the record, not simply be referenced as existing.
- The finding recited does not match the statutory standard. The resolution finds that “sleeping or lodging within the stated proximity to the designated area(s) is unhealthy, unsafe, or incompatible with safe passage.” That is not the standard the ordinance sets. 41.18(c)(4) requires a finding of a “particular and ongoing threat to public health or safety,” evidenced by things like a death, a pattern of violent crime, or fire department responses. “Incompatible with safe passage” describes ordinary sidewalk obstruction, the kind of generic inconvenience present on any block with an encampment. If that language were sufficient, it would satisfy the ordinance for literally every sidewalk in the city, which would collapse the municipal code’s own limiting language (“particular,” “specific,” enumerated categories) into surplusage. Courts do not read ordinances to render their own qualifying language meaningless, and the Council should not adopt a resolution that does exactly that.
- The resolution fails the “particular” and “at that location” requirements by batching seven unrelated sites under one generic label. LAMC 41.18(c)(4) requires the threat determination to be made “at that location,” singular. This resolution groups seven addresses spanning three distinct neighborhoods (Westchester/LAX-adjacent Sepulveda and La Tijera corridor; Rose Ave and Hampton Dr in Venice; Wilshire Blvd near West LA) under a single undifferentiated “Public Safety” designation with identical boilerplate findings. Nothing in the resolution distinguishes what specific, documented incident occurred at 8925 S Sepulveda Blvd from what occurred at 720 Rose Ave. Treating seven geographically and factually distinct locations as fungible is inconsistent with a law that requires an individualized, location-specific finding for each designation.
- The consequence of non-compliance is not merely procedural. Under 41.18(d), no person may be found in violation of a posted zone unless the Council has first “taken action, by resolution” consistent with the requirements of subsection (c). A resolution that does not satisfy (c)(4)’s documentation and particularity requirements cannot lawfully trigger enforcement under (d), regardless of whether it is adopted. Passing a resolution that does not meet the ordinance’s own prerequisites does not just risk criticism, it risks adopting a designation that has no legal effect and that exposes the City to challenge.
Request
I ask the Council to decline to adopt CF 26-4118-S7 on Tuesday and instead require CD11 to place the specific, location-by-location documentation required by 41.18(c)(4) into the public record for each of the seven proposed sites, so that the Council’s finding, and the public’s opportunity to evaluate it, can actually satisfy the code the Council is relying on.
