The Brief

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass introduced new limits this week to her administration’s program to streamline affordable housing. The changes will further restrict where low-income apartments can be fast-tracked in the city at a time when rents are rising further out of reach for many residents.

In a message on the July 1 update, Bass framed the changes as creating “additional protections for existing residential tenants” and ensuring the “protection of historic resources.” Others see a significant rollback of a promising program that has spurred lots of much-needed development.

The long list of new restrictions includes a prohibition on fast-tracking affordable housing in the city’s designated historic districts, an idea proposed earlier by City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavksy in response to plans for low-income apartments in pricey Windsor Village.

Another new restriction will ban fast-tracked affordable housing projects on properties that already contain rent-controlled apartment buildings with 12 or more units.

From ‘remarkable’ to ‘status quo’

Housing policy experts said the latest changes will likely curtail plans for new affordable housing, especially from private developers who have used the mayor’s streamlining initiative to propose thousands of low-income apartments without any public funding.

“It's just turning something that was really remarkable into another status quo type tool,” said Jason Ward, an economist and co-director of the RAND Center on Housing and Homelessness. “That's never going to get us where we need to go in terms of housing production.”

LAist reached out to the mayor’s office to ask what prompted the latest round of changes to ED1. Bass spokesperson Clara Karger responded in an email, saying, “Mayor Bass believes that policies should be constantly evaluated and improved upon. That’s what this revision seeks to do. She also believes that we will be able to build more housing if everyone has buy-in.”

Reeling from a housing affordability crisis that has kept homelessness levels elevated and pushed young families out of the city, L.A. is currently facing state requirements to plan for about 185,000 new low-income housing units by 2029. So far the city — like most other parts of California — is not on track to meet those goals.

How we got here 

Bass signed the program in question, Executive Directive One (ED1), during her first week in office. She promised that her planning department would deliver city approvals for new 100% affordable housing developments within a matter of weeks, rather than the previous norm of months or years.

Housing advocates have so far largely seen the program as a success. Bass has said more than 18,000 units of income-restricted housing have been proposed through ED1 to date.

But with all those new proposals has come fierce opposition from homeowners and neighborhood groups who feel ED1 has taken away their ability to slow down or kill projects they believe will harm their communities.

Some residents near proposed ED1 developments have complained about lack of parking, perceived harms to nearby property values and the ability for developers to bypass lengthy environmental reviews.

Group seeking to ‘protect neighborhoods’ applauds changes

Maria Pavlou Kalban is a founder of the group United Neighbors, which says its mission is to “protect neighborhoods” and “ensure local control.” Her group has been lobbying the mayor’s office for changes to ED1, a program she says has been harmful to many neighborhoods. Kalban said Bass seems to have taken many of their concerns to heart.

“A lot of the stuff we were fighting for, we found in these revisions,” Kalban said. “So we really think the mayor stepped up.”

Kalban cheered changes Bass made to ED1 regarding how many waivers and incentives developers can request. Developers typically rely on a number of concessions — often involving increased height, less required open space and smaller setbacks from property lines — to make their projects pencil out financially.

Last year, Bass changed ED1 to ban streamlined affordable housing in areas with single-family homes, which make up 74% of the city’s residential land. The new changes further shrink the areas where developers can propose ED1 projects. But Kalban thinks L.A. still has plenty of room for new housing along commercial corridors, such as low-slung strip malls that could be redeveloped into apartment buildings.

“We're trying to solve the problem of how we need more housing, but we don't feel you have to destroy existing housing in order to get that,” Kalban said.

A win for exclusionary neighborhoods? 

Other housing policy watchers say Bass is bending to the demands of wealthy homeowners in neighborhoods long resistant to new housing. Scott Epstein, the director of policy and research for Abundant Housing L.A., said carving historic districts out of ED1 is a mistake.

“There are many parcels in [historic districts] that are not historic at all,” Epstein said, such as vacant lots. “These are also pretty exclusionary communities.”

Jason Ward, the RAND economist, said nonprofit affordable housing developers with decades of experience navigating the complexities of building low-income housing in California will likely continue to benefit from ED1. But he said when it comes to the many low-income housing proposals coming from for-profit developers, these changes leave ED1 “functionally gutted.”

“At some point in Los Angeles, if we’re serious about increasing housing affordability, we need some leadership that's willing to just take the hits and make permanent changes that will be painful to many stakeholders that are used to having their way,” Ward said.

If you care about local housing affordability

For people who live in L.A., the Board of Supervisors and City Council have the most direct impact on housing affordability in your neighborhood.

• Learn more about who influences local housing policy

The best way to keep tabs on your own local government is by attending public meetings for your city council or local boards. Here are a few tips to get you started.

• Find meeting schedules and agendas: City councils usually meet at least twice a month, although larger ones may meet weekly. Committees and boards tend to meet less often, typically once a month. You can find the schedule and meeting agenda on your local government’s website, or posted physically at your local city hall. Find more tips here.
  
  • Find L.A. City Council agendas and meeting dates
  • Find meetings for L.A. city boards and commissions
  • Find L.A. County agendas and meeting dates
• Learn the jargon: Closed session, consent calendars and more! We have definitions for commonly used terms here.
• How to give public comment: Every public meeting allows community members to give comment, whether or not it’s about something on the agenda. The meeting agenda will have specific instructions for giving public comment. Review more details here.

After opening a modern Korean pub called Yi Cha in 2025, chef Debbie Lee decided to pay homage to her heritage with Mokja, this time serving Korean goods and convenience.

Lee sat down with AirTalk Friday host Austin Cross to talk about her vision for gourmet Korean style snacks in L.A.

Grab-and-go convenience with a twist

Lee says the idea behind Mokja was to take the model of American convenience stores and blend it with Korean flavors.

It’s a place for people who want to grab something for the road, stop by for a quick snack or even meal prep for the week. The store also partnered with Frank and Michele La, creators of Be Bright Coffee, to offer Korean-style coffee drinks to pair with the snacks.

Daru Yu, Frank La, Debbie Lee and Michelle La

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

The Korean word Mokja translates to "let's eat."

“If your mom or your grandma was calling you over the table, they'd say, ‘Bali Mokja,’ which means, ‘Hurry, let's eat’”

What you’ll find at Mokja

One of the quick, to-go items you’ll find is Lee’s northern style mandu dumplings, stuffed with fatty pork and shrimp and inspired by her grandmother’s recipe.

Build your own ramen tray

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Build your own Ramen station

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Grab n' Go Banchan

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

For optimal convenience, the king-sized dumplings are offered in the grab-and-go fridge. Lee recommends popping them in the microwave at the store and enjoying them with a coffee.

Mokja also features a make-your-own ramen station, which Lee says has become incredibly popular for families with kids.

Korean hand pies with southern flair

One of the highlights on the menu is the oxtail hand pie, which features a braised Korean-style oxtail known as kkori-jjim. It’s inspired by southern soul food influences her parents picked up on.

Braised Oxtail aka “Gori Jjim” Hand Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

“My mom learned how to cook from the Black cooks in Jackson, Mississippi, and she learned good old soul Southern food.”

Kimchee Cheese Biscuits

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Yuja Cha Ice Box Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Lee said Mokja is all about telling the story through food.

The restaurant also features other Korean/Southern fusion, including a Yuju cha ice box pie and Kimchi cheese biscuits.

State lawmakers have reached a deal that would provide school districts some relief from the costs of childhood sexual abuse lawsuits filed after a 2020 law allowed victims to sue for abuse by public employees going back decades, EdSource has learned.

It was not immediately clear Thursday afternoon whether the last-minute deal, brokered days before the legislative session is set to end on Aug. 31, has enough support to reach Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

At issue is Assembly Bill 218, a law that lifted the statute of limitations to sue for childhood sexual abuse and enabled a blitz of costly litigation against schools and public agencies. In some cases, victims have received tens of millions of dollars for sexual assaults and abuses they say took place decades ago at the hands of teachers and other public employees.

Details of the deal are included in amendments made to Senate Bill 577 co-authored by Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. According to the amended bill text, the deal would raise the legal standard required for people who are 40 years or older to sue for sexual assaults that occurred before Jan. 1, 2024. It also calls for schools and other agencies to have sexual assault prevention plans and codes of conduct.

“California stands with survivors, whose voices have shaped this process every step of the way, and the Legislature is taking action to defend and preserve survivors’ path to justice — that is not negotiable,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said in a statement. “With this solution, the state is safeguarding schools and public services, while investing in prevention and protecting against future abuse. California is committed to the safety of every child.”

The amendments do not appear to address a limit or cap on jury awards or settlement amounts for childhood sexual abuse cases in the state. Caps were a major demand from public agencies, including schools, counties and obscure agencies called joint powers authorities that serve as insurance pools for school districts.

Laird, who had attempted to pass an AB 218 reform bill last year, said in a phone interview Thursday evening that the negotiations that led to the compromise were difficult. Putting a complete cap on settlement amounts “was a bridge too far” for many lawmakers, Laird said.

Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association, said the group was grateful for lawmakers’ efforts, but added that it’s “highly questionable” whether the deal would do enough to prevent school districts from getting slammed with seven-figure settlements.

“We’re grateful to Speaker Rivas and Pro Tem (Monique) Limón for their efforts to address this issue,” Ben Adler, director of public affairs for the California State Association of Counties, said in a statement. “It’s clear the status quo is broken, and the unintended consequences have grown out of control.”

Democratic California lawmakers are pushing a last-minute bill to ban federal agents from using electric shock gloves, becoming one of the first states in the nation to respond to reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to purchase thousands of gloves next year as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown.

Democrats this week advanced Assembly Bill 2760, which would prohibit ICE agents and state and local officers from wearing any device that can deliver electric shocks. It would also block California police departments from purchasing the devices with state money.

San Diego Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, a Democrat, introduced the bill only last week, with days remaining in the legislative session, in a process known as a “gut and amend,” in which an unrelated bill is rewritten and fast–tracked.

The eleventh-hour move follows a notice published earlier this month by the Department of Homeland Security that said ICE is seeking to spend up to $20 million to buy thousands of taser-like gloves from Compliant Technologies, a Kentucky-based company. The product, called G.L.O.V.E. for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter, is marketed as a non-lethal, de-escalation device on the company’s website. The Associated Press first reported about the notice.

ICE announced on Thursday it was awarding the Kentucky company a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of gloves.

“While the gloves are not currently being used in California, waiting for a tragedy to act, in my personal opinion, and so many others, would be something that California could not handle,” Sharp-Collins said at a hearing on Wednesday.

She said the gloves pose a public safety risk and cited the case of a Kentucky man who died after allegedly being shocked 27 times with the gloves and 13 times with a Taser while in jail last year.

On Thursday, U.S. Sen Alex Padilla and other congressional Democrats wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin urging the department to cancel its contract with the company providing the gloves, calling them “hand-worn tasers disguised as restraint equipment.”

Civil rights groups strongly support the bill and argue that electric shock gloves are inhumane and an excessive use of force.

“Electroshock gloves by any law enforcement agency makes Californians less safe,” Anallely Martin, of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said at the hearing.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association and numerous other law enforcement groups oppose the bill, arguing it would unnecessarily limit officers’ ability to de-escalate a situation.

“This is a bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective, and it’s really only gonna be a message to the feds that’s going to fail to land,” California State Sheriffs’ Association lobbyist Cory Salzillo said at the hearing.

It’s the latest move by California lawmakers to clamp down on ICE agents in response to President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration raids. Just this week, Democrats passed a bill that would ban federal agents from working for state or local police agencies and another to make it easier for people to sue agents for civil rights violations.

In April, a federal court struck down a 2025 law forcing masked immigration agents to identify themselves. Judges ruled the state had stepped out of bounds when it tried to enforce rules against federal officers.

Similar to that law, if Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signs the new bills, they’re expected to face nearly identical legal challenges.

“States simply can’t regulate how federal officers do their jobs, even if we don’t like how they do their jobs. That’s up to the federal government,” UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar said.

Without a clear argument on how the gloves violate people’s constitutional rights, the legislation would likely hold little weight in court, Amar said.

“It makes a lot of bills like this kind of more performative than real,” Amar said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Have you ever had trouble getting or updating a government ID … like a driver's license or state ID card? Or was it super simple? LAist wants to hear from you.

Proposition 39 is on the ballot this fall, which would require voters to show a government-issued ID when casting a ballot. For mail-in ballots, voters would have to include the last four digits of that ID on the envelope. 

This would be a big change from how voting currently works in California. So we want to know: What will that mean for eligible voters? Tell us, and your answers could help shape our coverage.

Wait, voters don't currently have to show ID?

Currently, California law asks voters to prove their identity when they register to vote, but not when they actually cast a ballot. And the state accepts a wide variety of documents as proof of voter eligibility, including a student ID or bank statement. That would also change under Prop. 39.

What we want to know

How easy, or hard, is it to get a government-issued ID? Have you faced barriers to getting an official ID? What were they?

Go deeper

• A voter ID measure will be on California's November ballot: Here's what you need to know
• A guide to Proposition 39: Take our quiz to weigh the pros and cons
• Voter ID: Initiative gathers enough signatures for the ballot