[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6585451,"mediaKeyId","5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f","parentId",5664938,"title","Council confirms area planning commissioners, approves multiple routine items; several items continued","audioSeconds",472,"startMs",1433000,"endMs",1905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f&start=1433&end=1905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f/thumbnail_1433000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6585451/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-confirms-area-planning-commissioners-approves-multiple-routine-items-several-items-continued","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6585451-aca69420f07709bf4ce9154130c21104/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192764&Signature=a~wuZj4UYOTBlxEZtZoOLl1cJoAT~1PYIjHHnFD0n9efebMgxMKWFwcwaPfax-h5BTxWbDPzNWPkwNJbwlspraoC4sCbkWKcYTeIkDYnnSV6gMJb9FYLiH4kvJYY0-GoOW9SeUJ6Q-wcJE66o9zpQbiW1CqZpgc07T-itItWlbHf2ZErHRH6P39-Tzw0sxfDo9Kwcct0FI6PsZxMF6rvAzr7jN29XR4PJl8qhDLobjgn3-XG~jemfESkrv-jVHjz9-b3eE2ytP9vl9XnIDuZZEMj~LnNmyoQMuALMhGYV6HEAc9TlSVptf5jqyyNxP~1keukQ4SbMiibqZO3bZp41Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Los Angeles City","date","2025-08-22T23:19:34.773Z","article","The Los Angeles City Council confirmed multiple area planning commissioners, approved several routine agenda items and continued several ordinance items that require larger majorities.

Confirmations: Council confirmed nominations to the area planning commissions across multiple districts. The East Los Angeles Area Planning Commission nominees (Items 5–9) — listed at the dais as Helmy Hizrick, Lori Weir, Yolanda Chavez, Philip Barbaro Jr. and Jose Huzar — were approved by roll call (10 ayes on the roll noted at confirmation). The West Los Angeles nominees (Items 10–12) — Flora Gil Kristoloff, Tracy Cahill and Dwayne Hall — and South Valley nominees (Items 13–14) — Cecilia Berman and Janelle Huff — and North Valley nominees (Items 15–16) — Stephanie Payne and George Tavares — were also confirmed by roll calls recorded as unanimous approvals.

Street lighting and other items: A public hearing on two street lighting districts was closed with no public speakers; an ordinance tied to that item was continued one week because the code requires unanimity and a minimum of 12 members present for a first reading to pass. Multiple items for which public hearings had been held (Items 17–31, with Item 27 called special) and items without hearings (Items 32–53, with Item 41 called special) were approved by roll call except for items specifically continued or called special. Several items (including closed session matters referenced as Items 54a and 55) were continued to Friday, June 16, at the request of the City Attorney. Housing Department items (33, 35, 36) were continued where staff requested additional time.

Procedural notes: Council conducted routine approvals of minutes and commendatory resolutions by unanimous consent. The council handled motions to continue items 2–4 to July 12 and several other agenda adjustments by unanimous votes. The council also placed Item 27 on the desk pending receipt of an independent panel and later some agenda items were returned to committee for additional review.

Votes at a glance (selected items referenced in the meeting record):
- Items 5–9 (East LA area planning commissioners): approved (recorded: 10 ayes at roll call); outcome: confirmed.
- Items 10–12 (West LA area planning commissioners): approved (recorded: 10 ayes); outcome: confirmed.
- Items 13–14 (South Valley area planning commissioners): approved (recorded: 10 ayes); outcome: confirmed.
- Items 15–16 (North Valley area planning commissioners): approved (recorded: 10 ayes); outcome: confirmed.
- Item 1 (two street lighting districts): public hearing closed; ordinance first reading continued one week because a unanimous vote with 12 members is required for first‑reading ordinance passage.
- Items 17–31 (public hearings held): approved except Item 17 (as an ordinance, put over one week) and Item 27 (called special and later held on desk); roll calls recorded as approved.
- Items 32–53 (public hearings not held): approved except Item 41 (called special) and items continued as noted; roll calls recorded as approved.
- Closed session items 54a and 55: continued to Friday, June 16, per City Attorney request.

The meeting also included public comment and ceremonial items. Several motions to continue or remand items to committee were approved during the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Regular City Council - 06/14/00","oneSentenceSummary","At the June meeting the City Council confirmed multiple area planning commissioners across districts, approved street lighting and multiple planning items, and continued several ordinance items to allow required majorities for first readings.","taxTitle","Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4025,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6585456,"Rampart independent review panel outlines scope, targets public report by Oct. 1; council members press for neighborhood representation",565,3501000,4066000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f&start=3501&end=4066","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f/thumbnail_3501000.jpg","/articles/6585456/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Rampart-independent-review-panel-outlines-scope-targets-public-report-by-Oct-1-council-members-press-for-neighborhood-representation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6585456-d7f34b22bea316e1f0f7af8f90dad06c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192764&Signature=cFlr9qUDFyZY6hI-oMmE8ZiVkYObx6aWj4rjc-vsoui2HBds2-dBMid3hNKOH3j3PqU-bYFhHGjNOjaxksvSkYt0KJytahyAf8KXw-rKKblFme366hgc7cfaoy3jJuG8KRIbtq4IOmWCnAlDINqgJSdDF7qrcdtSW~B8b3Md4QuQdmmTrLIoO5uJbucvYVkfl7JwfTPpvDVX6iotF6zungpQWJwd88maMvXglaoG3t7o4LxnjnAzuEL1VXpgSVWvHR5qqTAsDdTjYqr0e~lDy5~OkcsQ1ST355jEvBqTWr-j~Bl5Ry7Uxzbznv1u3WYqIe9TtSgcreBaWhlUSydxkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rampart Independent Review Panel, formed under the police commission but operating independently, told the Los Angeles City Council it has expanded its membership and organized into working groups that will review Los Angeles Police Department policies, civilian oversight and the impact of the Rampart scandal.

\"We are committed to doing a thorough and independent review,\" Richard Druyan, general counsel to the panel, said during a council presentation. He told the council the panel had about 146 members, with 121 volunteers and 25 paid investigators, and that the panel had divided into eight working groups covering topics including disciplinary systems, civilian oversight, use of force, training and the Rampart working group itself. \"Our target date, mister president, is October 1,\" Druyan said for public release of a report.

Council members raised concerns about the panel's composition and representation. Council member Goldberg asked for a more detailed ethnic breakdown; Druyan said 36 percent of panel members are minority and 26 percent are women, and provided a breakdown he said was \"14% African American, 14% Hispanic, and 6 percent Asian.\" Goldberg and other members said the panel should include people who have regular, on‑the‑ground experience representing defendants or the communities most affected by alleged abuses; Goldberg urged the panel to accept recommendations on additional members.

Panel counsel Druyan described the panel's investigative access and limits: the panel has access to police personnel and complaint records and is careful not to interfere with pending criminal investigations or prosecutions. He said the panel has interviewed or contacted hundreds of potential sources and was reviewing \"hundreds of reports, policies, procedures\" including the department's Board of Inquiry materials.

Council members suggested the panel examine other police divisions that have generated high complaint volumes, including Hollenbeck and the 70th Street division, to determine whether problems are isolated or systemic. Council member Pacheco urged the panel not to lose sight of \"rogue cops\" who might operate outside coordinated scandals and asked the panel to develop ways to identify problem officers across the department.

Druyan said the panel includes a majority of attorneys, plus academics, investigators, community leaders and others; he said volunteers had contributed thousands of hours to date. He emphasized the panel will deliver its report publicly to the police commission at the same time it is released and that the commission and department will not receive an advance or be able to edit the panel's findings.

The council did not take legislative action on the presentation; members asked the panel to return with additional detail as the review proceeds.","The Rampart Independent Review Panel told the City Council it has grown to about 146 members, mostly volunteers, and is organized into eight working groups reviewing LAPD policy, civilian oversight and the scope of the Rampart scandal; the panel aims to release a public report by Oct. 1.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6585461,"Council remands REAP removal of downtown apartment for further inspection after tenant, owner testimony",1057,2353000,3410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f&start=2353&end=3410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5664938-e032c0bc4ece3ef6992c91622456724f/thumbnail_2353000.jpg","/articles/6585461/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-remands-REAP-removal-of-downtown-apartment-for-further-inspection-after-tenant-owner-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6585461-2de324637029d4d2fc927f3d9f817a79/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192765&Signature=YO~OoInMPVFEu0wihtYJem8YKQuPEk9J2jgHIlVR4KBYZASeC5ykWrjd1HJTyGJa827lJ6bYCD9KKSUwIKPH6Nb3fgx3sXHLIWP4gkoET2cgMgzuqIb4Wb4b3o6rJcJwdMPyz5bUtGrJaF029ev0t7DZLs8bLBEfcOWbDSuiDml2JTMMkNzrSf31MxfFxs5DPsi9VDQOosRdg757jfQF9v2boYVLdGXac2wxDZT0FLoTlW~3zM9UcAmBOfy~8HBcugS0bxTTJ2drBmvh9-YO00ny~hbTlkzFs-fEYUm~Mh-pE3cQHqNKqlSxG1CTAA2S0O0XMTs4zBNwtCsKG7Kyvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","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.","Los Angeles City Council voted to remand Item 41 — a staff recommendation to remove a downtown property from the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) — back to the REAP committee for further inspection after conflicting testimony from the mortgage holder, tenants and city inspectors.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council confirms area planning commissioners, approves multiple routine items; several items continued

Rampart independent review panel outlines scope, targets public report by Oct. 1; council members press for neighborhood representation

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