CITY OF LOS ANGELES HOUSING + COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION RENT ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION (RAC) AGENDA

Transcription

1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES HOUSING + COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION RENT ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION (RAC) AGENDA Thursday, 12:00 P.M. Garland Office Hearing Room 1200 West 7th Street 1st Floor Los Angeles, CA Note: Please see security desk upon entering the building. COMMISSIONERS Sam E. Lucas, Chairperson Carole Brogdon, Vice Chairperson Leonora Gershman Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane Paul Dash Stolarz Ernesto G. Hidalgo Rushmore D. Cervantes, General Manager Anna Ortega, Director Rent Stabilization Susan Gosden, Senior Management Analyst II I. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Call to Order, Roll Call, Establish Quorum B. HCIDLA Report C. RAC Chairperson s Report D. Internal Review Committee (IRC) Chairperson s Report E. Informational Material II. III. HEARINGS REPORT Review of the Hearings Section appeals workload RAC DISCUSSION OF NEW BUSINESS AND REQUESTS TO SCHEDULE ITEMS Opportunity for Commissioners to identify topics of interest within the subject matter of the Commission and to request the scheduling of that item on future agendas of the Commission. Maximum discussion is five minutes per topic.

2 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE RAC Opportunity for the public to address the Commissioners to identify topics of interest. V. FUTURE MEETINGS (tentative) RAC: July 12, 2018 (Special) July 19, 2018 July 26, 2018 (Special) August 2, 2018 IRC: July 12, 2018 July 26, 2018 APPEALS BOARD I. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE RAC APPEALS BOARD (AB) Opportunity for the public to address the Commissioners on AB agenda items. II. CONSENT CALENDAR: HCIDLA RECOMMENDATION TO DENY SPECIFIC NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES The RAC AB will review and determine whether the following appeals should be denied based on the HCIDLA s recommendation that the appeals have procedural deficiencies: A. CITY ATTORNEY REFERRAL The General Manager s decision was referral to the City Attorney; therefore, denial of the application for appeal is recommended as the AB does not have the jurisdictional authority to hear or act upon the subject of the appeal for case numbers: N. Glendale Blvd., Los Angeles, CA S. Grand View St., Los Angeles, CA W. Kiowa Ave., Los Angeles, CA B. NO ERROR OF FACT OR LAW Denial of the application for appeal is recommended as the appellant did not specify an error of fact or law as required by Los Angeles Municipal Code Section : E. Market St., Venice, CA W. Wyandotte St., Van Nuys, CA 91405

3 III. APPEALS OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING DECISION The Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) will convene as the Appeals Board to consider and make determinations regarding appeals of the General Manager s decisions for the following cases: A. Property Address: 4058 S. Coco Ave., Los Angeles, CA Case Number: Appellants: Myra Wilmore General Manager s Hearing Date: February 28, 2018 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: March 20, 2018 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to reverse the acceptance of the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction. B. Property Address: 5121 N. Bakman Ave., North Hollywood, CA Case Number: Bakman, LLC General Manager s Hearing Date: February 27, 2018 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: March 23, 2018 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction. C. Property Address: 5303 W. 8 th St., Los Angeles, CA Case Number: Velmatt LP General Manager s Hearing Date: April 11, 2018 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: May 8, 2018 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction.

4 D. Property Address: 1228 W. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Los Angeles, CA Case Number: Fawn Cousin General Manager s Hearing Date: April 4, 2018 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: April 24, 2018 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction. E. Property Address: 750 W. Washington Blvd., Venice, CA Case Number: Mountain Park Management LLC General Manager s Hearing Date: April 11, 2018 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: May 8, 2018 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction. A. AB ADJOURNMENT Person(s) wishing to speak during consideration of a specific item must complete a Speaker Card form and submit it to a Department staff person. In accordance with the RAC s Working Rules, for any item listed on the agenda, any individual or representative of any group may address the RAC prior to any action being taken by the RAC on that specific agenda item. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker, and there shall be a cumulative total of up to twelve minutes allowed per agenda item unless a time extension is allowed by the RAC. As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure access to its programs, services and activities. Sign language interpreters, assisted listening devices, language translators or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability, requests need to be called in to the Hearing Section or RAC Support Section at least three working days before the meeting. Please contact the Hearing Section at (213) or RAC Support at (213) The TDD telephone number for public information is (213) Mail all RAC correspondence to: Rent Adjustment Commission, 1200 W. 7th St, Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA For other questions or comments regarding specific appeals, hearings, or case scheduling please contact Hearing Section at (213) For general questions regarding Rent Stabilization, Code Enforcement, or SCEP please call (866) 557-RENT (7368) or (213) If you challenge these agenda items in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing in this agenda, or in written correspondence on these matters delivered to this agency at or prior to the public hearing. The time in which a party may seek judicial review of this determination is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section Under that provision, a petitioner may seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section , only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section is filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which the City's decision became final.

5 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Myra Wilmore, Tenant Property Address: 4058 S. Coco Ave., Los Angeles, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 4 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: January 29, 2018 General Manager s Hearing: February 28, 2018 General Manager s Decision: March 20, 2018 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to reverse the Department s Decision to accept the subject property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). The appellant states that the Hearing Officer erred in reversing the decision to accept the case into REAP because the REAP outreach contractor, SAJE, was not contacted to inspect or sign-off on the corrected violations before the case was closed. The appellant also states that the dampness in the room has reoccurred, demonstrating that the underlying cause has not been truly corrected. ISSUE BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD The issue before the Appeals Board is whether the General Manager s Hearing Officer erred in reversing the Department s decision to accept the building into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). BACKGROUND On August 15, 2017, a complaint inspection was conducted at the subject property. Code violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on August 16, 2017 listing approximately 12 violations. On October 17, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 11 remaining violations. On October 19, 2017, an updated Notice and Order to Comply was issued to the owner. On November 20, 2017, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 10 remaining violations. On January 29, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On February 21, 2018, a third re-inspection was conducted revealing 3 remaining violations. On February 26, 2018, a fourth re-inspection was conducted revealing zero remaining violations. 3

6 CCRIS Page 2 On February 28, 2018, the General Manager s Hearing was held. On March 20, 2018, a decision was issued reversing the Department s decision to accept the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. SUMMARY OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING The General Manager s hearing was held on February 28, Senior Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were zero code violations as of the last inspection. He also stated that the Case Management Senior Inspector indicated that all violations for this case have been resolved. The owner, Wendy Norman, appeared at the hearing but did not provide any testimony. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On March 20, 2018, the Hearing Officer issued a decision reversing the Department s decision to accept the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC Decision Where it is determined that the violation has not been corrected, the General Manager may make any of the following orders, as appropriate: (1) Order that the violation be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution. (2) Order a rent reduction (3) Order that the building or dwelling units be accepted into REAP. LAMC SEC C. Appeal of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision. The property owner/landlord, any tenant or the Enforcement Agency may appeal to the RAC Appeals Board within ten calendar days after service of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision, following the procedures set forth in Division 10 of Article 1 of Chapter XVI. If a General Manager Hearing Officer Decision to place a property into REAP is appealed, enforcement of REAP will be stayed until the appeal is final. An application fee required pursuant to Section may be waived by the Department in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section C. REAP REG Appeals of General Manager s Decision to Appeals Board Section C. Hearing At the hearing, the Appeals Board review of the General Manager s decision will be limited to those alleged errors of law and/or abuse of discretion that occurred during the General Manager s hearing. The Board will not consider any evidence not presented at the General Manager s hearing unless it is newly discovered evidence which could not, with due diligence, have been discovered and produced at the General Manager s hearing. Charlotte Lee, Management Assistant Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, Compliance 4

7 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION 5121 Bakman LLC, Owner Property Address: 5121 N. Bakman Ave., North Hollywood, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 17 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: January 26, 2018 General Manager s Hearing: February 27, 2018 General Manager s Decision: March 23, 2018 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to affirm the Department s Decision to accept the subject property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). The appellant states that there was an abuse of discretion by the Hearing Officer because the work was completed timely but the inspector was not available to sign off the violations. ISSUE BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD The issue before the Appeals Board is whether the General Manager s Hearing Officer erred in affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). BACKGROUND On August 8, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Code violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on August 17, 2017 listing approximately 44 violations. On September 25, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing some violations were corrected, but new violations were also found. An updated Notice and Order to Comply was issued listing 17 violations. On November 20, 2017, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 13 remaining violations. On January 26, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On February 7, 2018, a third re-inspection was conducted revealing 1 remaining violation. On February 27, 2018, the General Manager s Hearing was held. On March 23, 2018, a decision was issued affirming the acceptance of the property into REAP but modified the rent reduction to only include unit

8 SUMMARY OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING The General Manager s hearing was held on February 27, Senior Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there was one code violation as of the last inspection for illegal construction. He said the remaining violation only affected unit 107. Agents for the owner, Rick Bruce and Marco Vazquez, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. They said that they are obtaining a permit to restore the unit to its original use and it will take 60 to 90 days to complete the required work. They said they are vacating unit 107 to correct the violation, but they need to give a 60 day notice to do so. Senior Inspector Craddolph said he did not believe there was a necessity to evict the tenant in 107 in order to correct the violation. He said he was concerned because there was no evidence of progress on a permit for the remaining violation but wanted more time to review the case. Tenants from units 103 and 107 appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. The tenant in unit 103 said that the violations in her unit had not been corrected. The tenant in unit 107 said he was surprised to get an eviction notice and that there is illegal construction elsewhere in the building. On March 23, 2018, the Hearing Officer issued a decision affirming acceptance into REAP but modifying the rent reduction to only include unit 107. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC Decision Where it is determined that the violation has not been corrected, the General Manager may make any of the following orders, as appropriate: (1) Order that the violation be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution. (2) Order a rent reduction (3) Order that the building or dwelling units be accepted into REAP. LAMC SEC C. Appeal of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision. The property owner/landlord, any tenant or the Enforcement Agency may appeal to the RAC Appeals Board within ten calendar days after service of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision, following the procedures set forth in Division 10 of Article 1 of Chapter XVI. If a General Manager Hearing Officer Decision to place a property into REAP is appealed, enforcement of REAP will be stayed until the appeal is final. An application fee required pursuant to Section may be waived by the Department in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section C. REAP REG Appeals of General Manager s Decision to Appeals Board Section C. Hearing At the hearing, the Appeals Board review of the General Manager s decision will be limited to those alleged errors of law and/or abuse of discretion that occurred during the General Manager s hearing. The Board will not consider any evidence not presented at the General Manager s hearing unless it is newly discovered evidence which could not, with due diligence, have been discovered and produced at the General Manager s hearing. Matthew Holen, Senior Management Analyst Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, Compliance 4

9 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Velmatt LP, Owner Property Address: 5303 W 8 th St., Los Angeles, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 12 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: March 9, 2018 General Manager s Hearing: April 11, 2018 General Manager s Decision: May 8, 2018 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to affirm the Department s Decision to accept the subject property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). The appellant lists 21 reasons for appeal, including that the unapproved unit violation is not subject to REAP and that the cited violations do not affect the health, safety, or habitability of the tenants. ISSUE BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD The issue before the Appeals Board is whether the General Manager s Hearing Officer erred in affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). BACKGROUND On November 6, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Code violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on December 13, 2017 listing approximately 17 violations. On January 25, 2018, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 13 remaining violations. On March 1, 2018, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 6 remaining violations. On March 9, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On March 29, 2018, a third re-inspection was conducted revealing 1 remaining violation. On April 11, 2018, the General Manager s Hearing was held. On May 8, 2018, a decision was issued affirming the acceptance of the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. 3

10 CCRIS Page 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING The General Manager s hearing was held on February 27, Senior Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there was one code violation as of the last inspection for illegal use. The agent for the owner, Andrew Davies, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. A letter received from the owner, Matt Matthews, was also read into the record. The letter stated that he will be out of the country and requesting a continuance. It also stated that all repairs are completed except for the certificate of occupancy issue. He said the use has not changed for 50 years. Mr. Davies reiterated what was in the letter and stated that it is difficult to resolve the occupancy violation due to the age of the building and inconsistencies in City and County records. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On May 8, 2018, the Hearing Officer issued a decision affirming acceptance into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC Decision Where it is determined that the violation has not been corrected, the General Manager may make any of the following orders, as appropriate: (1) Order that the violation be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution. (2) Order a rent reduction (3) Order that the building or dwelling units be accepted into REAP. LAMC SEC C. Appeal of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision. The property owner/landlord, any tenant or the Enforcement Agency may appeal to the RAC Appeals Board within ten calendar days after service of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision, following the procedures set forth in Division 10 of Article 1 of Chapter XVI. If a General Manager Hearing Officer Decision to place a property into REAP is appealed, enforcement of REAP will be stayed until the appeal is final. An application fee required pursuant to Section may be waived by the Department in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section C. REAP REG Appeals of General Manager s Decision to Appeals Board Section C. Hearing At the hearing, the Appeals Board review of the General Manager s decision will be limited to those alleged errors of law and/or abuse of discretion that occurred during the General Manager s hearing. The Board will not consider any evidence not presented at the General Manager s hearing unless it is newly discovered evidence which could not, with due diligence, have been discovered and produced at the General Manager s hearing. Matthew Holen, Senior Management Analyst Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, Compliance 4

11 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Fawn Cousin, Owner Property Address: 1228 W Martin Luther King Jr Blvd., Los Angeles, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 4 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: December 13, 2017 General Manager s Hearing: January 2, 2018 and April 4, General Manager s Decision: January 19, 2018 and April 24, INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to affirm the Department s Decision to accept the subject property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). The appellant states that violations have been reduced significantly and that compliance has been delayed due to extenuating circumstances. ISSUE BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD The issue before the Appeals Board is whether the General Manager s Hearing Officer erred in affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). BACKGROUND On April 4, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property revealing 47 violations. On July 17, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on July 18, 2017 listing approximately 39 remaining violations. On September 12, 2017, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 28 remaining violations. On December 13, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On January 2, 2018, the first General Manager s Hearing was held. The hearing was continued to April 4, On April 24, 2018, a decision was issued affirming the Department s decision to accept the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. 3

12 CCRIS Page 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING The first hearing was held on January 2, The hearing was continued due to many family circumstances affecting the family in The second General Manager s hearing was held on April 4, Senior Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were 28 remaining violations as of the last inspection. He also stated that no attempt has been made by ownership to contact the department with a status update or to schedule reinspections. No owner or owner representative appeared at the hearing No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On April 24, 2018, the Hearing Officer issued a decision affirming the Department s decision to accept the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC Decision Where it is determined that the violation has not been corrected, the General Manager may make any of the following orders, as appropriate: (1) Order that the violation be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution. (2) Order a rent reduction (3) Order that the building or dwelling units be accepted into REAP. LAMC SEC C. Appeal of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision. The property owner/landlord, any tenant or the Enforcement Agency may appeal to the RAC Appeals Board within ten calendar days after service of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision, following the procedures set forth in Division 10 of Article 1 of Chapter XVI. If a General Manager Hearing Officer Decision to place a property into REAP is appealed, enforcement of REAP will be stayed until the appeal is final. An application fee required pursuant to Section may be waived by the Department in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section C. REAP REG Appeals of General Manager s Decision to Appeals Board Section C. Hearing At the hearing, the Appeals Board review of the General Manager s decision will be limited to those alleged errors of law and/or abuse of discretion that occurred during the General Manager s hearing. The Board will not consider any evidence not presented at the General Manager s hearing unless it is newly discovered evidence which could not, with due diligence, have been discovered and produced at the General Manager s hearing. Chi Thang, Management Assistant Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, Compliance 4

13 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Andy Howard, Owner Property Address: 750 W Washington Blvd., Venice, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 3 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: March 9, 2018 General Manager s Hearing: April 11, 2018 General Manager s Decision: May 8, 2018 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to affirm the Department s Decision to accept the subject property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). The appellant states that all violations have been corrected with the exception of the illegal construction, which was installed by the tenant, and permits should be finalized shortly. ISSUE BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD The issue before the Appeals Board is whether the General Manager s Hearing Officer erred in affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). BACKGROUND On July 12, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Code violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on July 14, 2017 listing approximately 8 violations. On October 25, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 7 remaining violations. On March 9, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On April 11, 2018, the General Manager s Hearing was held. On April 19, 2018, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 3 remaining violations. On May 8, 2018, a decision was issued affirming the Department s decision to accept the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. 3

14 CCRIS Page 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING The General Manager s hearing was held on April 11, Senior Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were 7 outstanding violations as of the last inspection. The violations include unapproved use, illegal construction of exterior signs and a garage door, unapproved electrical work, and unit access. He stated that the original use of the building was a one story duplex with attached garage, however, it is currently being used as a commercial building. The owner, Andy Howard, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He said that he purchased the building 30 years ago to use as an office space and that it has never been used for housing. He also stated that there was not a habitability issue since the building was not being used as a residential property. The Hearing Officer stated that she would leave the record open for a period of 12 days to allow for an interim inspection. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On April 8, 2018, the Hearing Officer issued a decision affirming the Department s decision to accept the property into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC Decision Where it is determined that the violation has not been corrected, the General Manager may make any of the following orders, as appropriate: (1) Order that the violation be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution. (2) Order a rent reduction (3) Order that the building or dwelling units be accepted into REAP. LAMC SEC C. Appeal of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision. The property owner/landlord, any tenant or the Enforcement Agency may appeal to the RAC Appeals Board within ten calendar days after service of the General Manager Hearing Officer Decision, following the procedures set forth in Division 10 of Article 1 of Chapter XVI. If a General Manager Hearing Officer Decision to place a property into REAP is appealed, enforcement of REAP will be stayed until the appeal is final. An application fee required pursuant to Section may be waived by the Department in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section C. REAP REG Appeals of General Manager s Decision to Appeals Board Section C. Hearing At the hearing, the Appeals Board review of the General Manager s decision will be limited to those alleged errors of law and/or abuse of discretion that occurred during the General Manager s hearing. The Board will not consider any evidence not presented at the General Manager s hearing unless it is newly discovered evidence which could not, with due diligence, have been discovered and produced at the General Manager s hearing. Chi Thang, Management Assistant Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, Compliance 4