Council remands REAP removal of downtown apartment for further inspection after tenant, owner testimony

The Los Angeles City Council voted to remand Item 41 — a proposal to remove a four‑story apartment building from the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) — back to the REAP committee for further investigation after residents, the mortgage holder and city inspectors gave conflicting accounts of building conditions.

The motion to remand was made by Council member Goldberg on behalf of Council member Hernandez and passed on an 11‑yes vote. Council members instructed the committee to obtain more unit‑level inspection information before deciding whether to terminate REAP protections for the property.

The issue drew public testimony from multiple sides. "This property has been in REAP. . . . It has been deemed the property to be in full compliance. The task force has recommended that this property be removed," said Michael Riddens, who identified himself to the council as representing the mortgage holder. Riddens told council members inspectors from multiple departments had signed off after repairs and that a court‑appointed receiver had been paying for work.

Opposing the removal, Mark Adams asked the council to return the matter to the REAP commission for further findings, saying there are continuing violations and "the slum conditions that led to this property going into REAP in the first place continue to exist." Tenant representative Martha Fernandez told the council that inspectors had not entered many units and that "we would like you guys please to go and inspect every single unit so you can see exactly how we live."

Robert Gluckstein, who said he holds the building's first mortgage and is working with the receiver, told the council he had advanced "over half a million dollars" to correct deficiencies and that the building had been signed off by building and other departments. Gluckstein said the elevator is operating and that some remaining problems are caused by vandalism; he said tenants had resisted allowing access to individual units.

Richard Bob, who identified himself as supervising the Slum Housing Task Force, told the council the building had been signed off by the three reviewing agencies but expressed concern that "perhaps the inspectors did not get into every unit." He recommended additional inspections to determine whether units remain untenable and cited a provision read to the council as "section 15206(b)(2)" under which the council may terminate REAP when it deems termination appropriate.

Council discussion focused on ensuring the REAP committee obtains full, unit‑by‑unit inspection evidence before deciding on termination. Council member Goldberg, speaking for Hernandez, said the council office had received continued complaints and asked for the committee review; Council member Burntzen said he would support that referral but warned REAP should not be used to keep tenants from paying rent if the property is properly corrected. "I will not support keeping things in REAP simply to reduce people's rent," he said.

The council adopted Goldberg's motion to remand the item to the REAP committee for further review; the clerk recorded the motion as approved on an 11‑yes roll call.

The council did not adopt a removal at the meeting; rather, it sent the matter back to committee with direction for additional inspections and findings to clarify outstanding unit‑level issues. The committee will consider the additional inspection results in its next review.

Notes: The public hearing on Item 41 included multiple speakers for and against removal; the council directed further agency inspections rather than immediately terminating REAP protections for the property.