CITY OF LOS ANGELES HOUSING + COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION

Transcription

1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES HOUSING + COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION RENT ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION (RAC) AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, January 11, :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 F. RAC Role and Responsibility II. III. HEARINGS REPORT Review of the Hearings Section appeals workload REPORT BACK ON APPEALS BOARD CONSENT CALENDAR CATEGORY CHANGES Report back by Hearings Section staff on the Appeals Board s three new Consent Calendar categories

2 IV. 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. V. 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. VI. FUTURE MEETINGS (tentative) RAC: January 18, 2018 February 1, 2018 February 15, 2018 March 1, 2018 IRC: January 25, 2018 February 8, 2018 APPEALS BOARD I. CONSENT CALENDAR: HCIDLA RECOMMENDATION TO DENY SPECIFIC NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES The Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) will review and determine whether the following appeals should be denied based on the HCIDLA s recommendation that these appeals have procedural deficiencies: A. NO ERROR OF FACT OR LAW The General Manager s decision was to refer the case to the City Attorney and affirm the placement of the property/units into REAP. 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. City View Ave., Los Angeles, CA S. Shell Ave., Venice, CA E. Vernon Ave., Los Angeles, CA S. Bedford St., Los Angeles, CA B. 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 Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) Appeals Board (AB) does not have the jurisdictional authority to hear or act upon the subject of the appeal for case numbers: W. Ambrose Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90027

3 II. 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: 3324 S. Oakhurst Ave., Los Angeles, CA Combo Case Number: CCRIS Tim Dietenhofer General Manager s Hearing Date: September 27, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: October 24, 2017 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. B. Property Address: 8927 S. Hoover St., Los Angeles, CA Combo Case Number: CCRIS Appellants: Bruce Ashoori General Manager s Hearing Date: November 8, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: November 29, 2017 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: W. Kling St., North Hollywood, CA Combo Case Number: CCRIS Stefanie Guarino General Manager s Hearing Date: October 12, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: November 14, 2017 The appellants filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to continue the case. D. Property Address: 1410 Ewing St., Los Angeles, CA Combo Case Number: CCRIS Terry Martinez General Manager s Hearing Date: October 17, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: November 9, 2017

4 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to decline referral to City Attorney and reverse the placement of the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction. E. Property Address: 22 E. Paloma Ave., Venice, CA Combo Case Number: CCRIS Leoniel Pustilnikou General Manager s Hearing Date: November 1, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: November 17, 2017 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 January 11, 2018 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION REAP Tim Dietenhofer, Property Manager Property Address: 3324 S Oakhurst Ave., Los Angeles, Ca CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 4 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: July 7, 2017 General Manager s Hearing: August 1, 2017 and September 27, 2017 General Manager s Decision: August 17, 2017 and October 24, 2017 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 the owner purchased the property in its present condition and have been working to obtain and finalize permits. 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 February 24, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on the same day listing approximately 20 violations. On April 13, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing one remaining violation for a structural hazard. On July 7, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. The first General Manager s Hearing was held on August 1, The hearing was continued to September 27, On October 24, 2017, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. 3

6 CCRIS January 11, 2018 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearings The first General Manager s hearing was held on August 1, The hearing was continued to allow the owner time to complete the permit process. The second General Manager s hearing was convened on September 27, Senior Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there was one remaining violation at the time of the hearing for a structural hazard related to the vertical supports in the garage area. No owner, owner representative, tenant, or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On October 24, 2017, 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

7 January 11, 2018 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION REAP Bruce Ashoori, Owner of Corporation Property Address: 8927 S Hoover St., Los Angeles, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 4 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: August 15, 2017 General Manager s Hearing: September 20, 2017 and November 8, 2017 General Manager s Decision: October 18, 2017 and November 29, 2017 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 repairs were done, but the inspector did not return calls to make final inspection. 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 28, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on May 2, 2017 listing approximately 23 violations. On June 26, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 21 remaining violations. On August 15, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. The first General Manager s Hearing was held on September 20, The hearing officer continued the hearing. On November 1, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 13 remaining violations. The second General Manager s hearing was held on November 8, On November 29, 2017, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. On December 11, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing all violations were corrected. 3

8 CCRIS January 11, 2018 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearings The first General Manager s hearing was held on September 20, The hearing was continued to allow the owner to obtain a final inspection to clear the remaining violations. The second General Manager s hearing was convened on November 6, Senior Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were 12 violations as of the last inspection. The remaining violations included damaged floor covering, defective heaters, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and insect screens. The owner, Bruce Ashoori, appeared at the hearing. He said that everything has been fixed and he has called an inspector to verify corrections and is waiting for the inspection to call him back to schedule an appointment. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. The hearing officer stated that the record would be left open until November 22 nd, and she would consider the results of any re-inspection at that time. On November 29, 2017, 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

9 January 11, 2018 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION REAP Stefanie Guarino, Tenant Property Address: W Kling St., North Hollywood, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 20 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: August 31, 2017 General Manager s Hearing: October 12, 2017 General Manager s Decision: November 14, 2017 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to continue the hearing. The appellant states that the property should be placed into REAP. The appellant states that due to the violations there have been robberies, vehicle break-ins, and trespassers endangering the safety and health of the tenants. ISSUE BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD The issue before the Appeals Board is whether the General Manager s Hearing Officer erred in granting a continuance. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on May 17, 2017 listing approximately 25 violations. On June 27, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 7 remaining violations. On August 31, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. The first General Manager s Hearing was held on October 12, On November 14 th, 2017, the hearing officer issued a decision continuing the hearing to December 12, On December 13, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 1 remaining violation for unapproved plumbing. 3

10 CCRIS January 11, 2018 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearings The General Manager s hearing was convened on October 12, Senior Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were 7 violations as of the last inspection, including weather protection, unapproved plumbing, and light fixtures. The owner, Janet Tashman, and agents for the owner, Mark Perpont and Ingrid Calvo, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. The owners stated that violations have been corrected and that they have scheduled a re-inspection for December 13, They said that they are completing a seismic construction project. The owner, Janet Tashman, said that her husband was the primary caretaker of the property and has recently been diagnosed with dementia, preventing him from addressing the cited violations. Tenants and former tenants from units 2, 18, and 20 appeared at the hearing. They said that the plumbing is currently being released into the ground outside the building and that termites have caused damage on balconies. They also said that the owners have not been responsive and the owners have removed their parking due to construction projects. On November 14, 2017, the Hearing Officer issued a decision continuing the hearing to December 13, 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 January 11, 2018 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION REAP Ruben Pena, Tenant Property Address: 1410 W Ewing St., Los Angeles, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: August 31, 2017 General Manager s Hearing: October 17, 2017 General Manager s Decision: November 9, 2017 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of a General Manager s Decision to continue the hearing. The appellant states that the property should be placed into REAP. He states that the hearing was never conducted, it was postponed and was never rescheduled. 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 April 21, 2017, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on April 27, 2017 listing approximately 22 violations. On June 7, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 21 remaining violations. On August 31, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. The General Manager s Hearing was held on October 17, On November 9, 2017, the hearing officer issued a decision reversing acceptance into REAP due to faulty notice. 3

12 CCRIS January 11, 2018 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearings The General Manager s hearing was convened on October 17, Senior Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were 21 violations as of the last inspection. He said the violations included handrail maintenance, exterior paint, plumbing maintenance, missing smoke detectors, and illegal construction. Ari Weinberg appeared at the hearing on behalf of the owner. He said that his LLC purchased the property on August 1 st. He acknowledged that violations existed at the property. He said that he intended to remove some of the units at the property from the rental market and relocate tenants and does not want to do major renovations before the units are vacated. The tenant from unit 1 appeared at the hearing and asked questions about his rights under rent control. On November 9, 2017, the Hearing Officer issued a decision reversing acceptance into REAP due to a faulty notice. 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

13 January 11, 2018 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION REAP Leonid Pustilnikov, Member of LLC Property Address: 22 E Paloma Ave., Venice, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 5 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: August 4, 2017 General Manager s Hearing: August 16, 2017 and November 1, 2017 General Manager s Decision: September 20, 2017 and November 17, 2017 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 tenants did not provide access and the inspector s order was ambiguous. 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 7, 2016, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on December 6, 2016 listing approximately 42 violations. On January 17, 2017, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 33 remaining violations. An updated Notice and Order to Comply was issued on April 7, On May 15, 2017, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing no violations corrected. On August 4, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. The first General Manager s Hearing was held on August 16, The hearing was continued. On August 17, 2017, the Department issued an updated Notice and Order to Comply. On October 16, 2017, a third re-inspection was conducted revealing 31 remaining violations. 3

14 CCRIS January 11, 2018 Page 2 On November 1, 2017, the second General Manager s hearing was conducted. On November 17, 2017, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. Summary of General Manager s Hearings The first General Manager s hearing was held on August 16 th, The General Manager s hearing was continued due to a recent change of ownership. The second General Manager s hearing was held on November 1, Senior Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated that there were 31 remaining violations as of the last inspection. He said the violations included illegal construction, stair maintenance, foundation vents, exterior paint, heating appliances, structural hazards, and unapproved plumbing. Leonid Pustilnikov, appeared on behalf of the owner at the hearing. He said they purchased the property in May of 2017 and that the tenants did not provide access to allow them to make corrections. He said they have evicted tenants that refused access and are now able to get access to areas that they had been denied. He said that they will complete the permit process and correct the violations now that they have access. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On November 17, 2017, 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