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, March 2, :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. DISCUSSION OF APPEALS BOARD POLICY CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE A. Discussion of Appeals Board Policy concerning requests for continuance B. Motion to send to IRC

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: March 16, 2017 March 30, 2017 (Special RAC) April 6, 2017 April 20, 2017 IRC: March 9, 2017 April 13, 2017 APPEALS BOARD I. CONSENT CALENDAR: HCIDLA RECOMMENDATION TO DENY SPECIFIC NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES The Rent Adjustment Commission will review and determine whether the following appeals should be denied based on the HCIDLA s recommendation that these appeals have procedural deficiencies: A. CONTINUED The General Manager s decision was to continue the hearing; therefore, denial of the application for appeal is recommended as the subject General Manager s decision was not the final decision for case number: N. Ave 64, Los Angeles, CA 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: 6106 S. 10 th Ave, Los Angeles, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS Revoydia Davis General Manager s Hearing Date: December 6, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: December 27, 2016 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.

3 B. Property Address: W. Martinez St., Woodland Hills, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS Kimbiz Dowlat Abadi General Manager s Hearing Date: November 8, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: November 22, 2016 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: 1626 E. Bridge St., Los Angeles, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS Rosalio Garcia General Manager s Hearing Date: November 15, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: December 30, 2016 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. D. Property Address: 5520 S. Morgan Ave., Los Angeles, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS Jose Carrillo General Manager s Hearing Date: December 6, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: December 29, 2016 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 III. 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 March 2, 2017 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: REAP Revoydia Davis Property Address: 6106 S 10 th Ave., Los Angeles, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 8 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: November 17, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: December 6, 2016 General Manager s Decision: December 27, 2016 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 individuals who appeared and testified at the General Manager s Hearing are not tenants at the property and committed perjury. The appellant also states that she could not attend the General Manager s Hearing because she had a conflicting hearing. 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 June 9, 2016, a Complaint inspection was conducted at the subject property in response to a complaint related to Unit Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on June 14, 2016 listing 16 violations. On July 25, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 6 remaining unresolved violations. On November 17, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On December 6, 2016, the General Manager s hearing was held. On December 27, 2016, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. 3

6 CCRIS March 2, 2017 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on November 8, HCIDLA Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Harrison stated that there were 6 remaining violations as of the last inspection. Inspector Harrison said that the remaining violations were for maintenance, plumbing, ventilation, and a heater installation requiring a permit. Inspector Harrison noted the cited violations were in Unit No owner or owner representative appeared at the hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer noted that the property was already in the REAP program and the result of this case would be to modify the rent reduction for Unit 6108 based on the new violations. Under the existing case, Unit 6108 receives a 40% rent reduction. If the new case is affirmed, Unit 6108 will receive a 50% rent reduction. Tenants from Units 6106 ½, 6108, and 6110 ¼ appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. The tenant in Unit 6108 said that none of the violations in his unit have been corrected. On December 27, 2016, a Decision was issued affirming the Department s decision to accept the building 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 Appeals D.3 If the landlord was already in compliance with the Order before the rent reduction effective date, the decision shall be reversed. If the landlord complies with the Order after the appeal is filed but before the hearing on the appeal, the rent reduction may be imposed retroactively for any rental payments that were due between the date set forth in the original decision and the date that the violations were corrected. If the decision is upheld on appeal the rent reduction shall be effective retroactive to the date set forth in the original decision. 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 March 2, 2017 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: Combo Kambiz Dowlat Abadi Property Address: W Martinez St., Woodland Hills, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: October 6, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: November 8, 2016 General Manager s Decision: November 22, 2016 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 the violation relates to an illegal unit, which is not eligible for REAP. The appellant also states he did not get the opportunity to cross examine HCID s Inspector at the General Manager hearing. 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 20, 2016, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on May 12, 2016 listing 10 violations. On July 13, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 3 remaining unresolved violations. On August 16, 2016, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 2 remaining violations On October 6, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On November 8, 2016, the General Manager s hearing was held. On November 22, 2016, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. 3

8 CCRIS March 2, 2017 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on November 8, HCIDLA Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Craddolph stated that there were 2 remaining violations as of the last inspection. Inspector Craddolph said that the remaining violations were for illegal construction related to a garage conversion and a water heater strap. The owner, Kambiz Dowlat Abadi, and his agent, Nick Nick Nuor, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. They stated that the strap on the water heater has been corrected and they submitted a picture to show that it was resolved. They said the illegal construction was only unresolved because they have not added a car port for an additional unit yet. They said that their intention is to build a carport, and the city would not allow them to go forward with the carport unless the dwelling was also approved. The owner asked for eight more months to fully comply. Inspector Craddolph stated that issuing a permit for a carport does not mean there is approval for the garage conversion. He stressed that there is still no record of approval of conversion of a garage to a rental unit. He also stated that an inspector needs to verify that the water heater strap is properly installed. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On November 22, 2016, a Decision was issued affirming the Department s decision to accept the building 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 Appeals D.3 If the landlord was already in compliance with the Order before the rent reduction effective date, the decision shall be reversed. If the landlord complies with the Order after the appeal is filed but before the hearing on the appeal, the rent reduction may be imposed retroactively for any rental payments that were due between the date set forth in the original decision and the date that the violations were corrected. If the decision is upheld on appeal the rent reduction shall be effective retroactive to the date set forth in the original decision. 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 March 2, 2017 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: REAP Rosalio Garcia Property Address: 1626 E Bridge St., Los Angeles, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: October 13, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: November 15, 2016 General Manager s Decision: December 30, 2016 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 a City Inspection was requested but has not been received. 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 May 18, 2016, a Complaint inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on May 24, 2016 listing 12 violations. On July 12, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 11 remaining unresolved violations. A revised Notice and Order to Comply was issued on July 25, 2016 to add the requirement of a permit for a heater installation. On September 7, 2016, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 3 remaining violations. On October 13, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On November 15, 2016, the General Manager s hearing was held. 3

10 CCRIS March 2, 2017 Page 2 On December 30, 2016, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on November 15, HCIDLA Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Harrison stated that there were 3 remaining violations as of the last inspection. Inspector Harrison said that the remaining violations were for illegal construction, an unapproved heater, and unapproved plumbing. No owner, owner representative, tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. Department records show the notice of the hearing was sent on October 13, 2016 to the owner of record as recorded with the County and left with an individual at the owner s address on October 17, On December 30, 2016, a Decision was issued affirming the Department s decision to accept the building 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 Appeals D.3 If the landlord was already in compliance with the Order before the rent reduction effective date, the decision shall be reversed. If the landlord complies with the Order after the appeal is filed but before the hearing on the appeal, the rent reduction may be imposed retroactively for any rental payments that were due between the date set forth in the original decision and the date that the violations were corrected. If the decision is upheld on appeal the rent reduction shall be effective retroactive to the date set forth in the original decision. 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 March 2, 2017 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: Combo Jose Carillo Property Address: 5520 S Morgan Ave., Los Angeles, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: November 17, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: December 6, 2016 General Manager s Decision: December 27, 2016 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 the decision is unfair because he has obtained permits but the Department of Building and Safety has given them corrections and they have not had time to make the corrections. 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 June 24, 2016, a Complaint inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on August 2, 2016 listing 2 violations. On September 15, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing the violations remained unresolved. On November 17, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On December 6, 2016, the General Manager s hearing was held. On December 27, 2016, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. 3

12 CCRIS March 2, 2017 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on December 6, HCIDLA Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Harrison stated that there were 2 remaining violations as of the last inspection. Inspector Harrison said that the remaining violations were for illegal construction related to the addition of two bedrooms in Unit The owner, Jose Carillo, and his agent, Lisa Fojas, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. They stated that they submitted plans in March of 2016, but they started construction before getting a permit because the process was moving slowly. They said the permit was issued the day before the hearing and now they need the Department of Building and Safety to inspect. They said that the work is done and they will call for a Building and Safety inspection right away. They said the tenants are still occupying the bedrooms. The Hearing Officer said she would review the record before issuing a final decision and take progress on the permit into consideration. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On December 27, 2016, a Decision was issued affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. The Hearing Officer noted in her decision that a review of the record at the time of the decision found that a Building and Safety inspection resulted in corrections being ordered and that the permit was still not final. 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 Appeals D.3 If the landlord was already in compliance with the Order before the rent reduction effective date, the decision shall be reversed. If the landlord complies with the Order after the appeal is filed but before the hearing on the appeal, the rent reduction may be imposed retroactively for any rental payments that were due between the date set forth in the original decision and the date that the violations were corrected. If the decision is upheld on appeal the rent reduction shall be effective retroactive to the date set forth in the original decision. 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