I. COMMISSION BUSINESS CITY OF LOS ANGELES HOUSING + COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION RENT ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION (RAC) AGENDA Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:00 P.M. Garland Office Hearing Room 1200 West 7th Street 1st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 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 Rushmore D. Cervantes, General Manager Anna Ortega, Director Rent Stabilization Susan Gosden, Senior Management Analyst II 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. GENERAL MANAGER S APPEAL FORM A. Recommendation from the IRC to amend the General Manager s Appeal Form B. Discussion of proposed revisions to the General Manager s Appeal Form C. Motion regarding the amendment of the General Manager s Appeal Form
III. JUST AND REASONABLE GUIDELINES REGULATION 240.00 A. Discussion of the need to review the Just and Reasonable Guidelines Regulation 240.00 B. Motion to refer to the Internal Review Committee 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: August 25, 2016 (Special RAC) September 1, 2016 September 8, 2016 (Special RAC) IRC: August 25, 2016 September 1, 2016 (Special IRC) September 8, 2016 (Special IRC) 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. 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: 553125 507 ½ E. 48 th St., Los Angeles, CA 90011 533221 139 S. Manhattan Pl., Los Angeles, CA 90004 488621 3817 W. 21 st St., Los Angeles, CA 90018
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: 2018 W. 39 th St., Los Angeles, CA 90008 Type of Case: Code and REAP (Combo) Case Number: CCRIS 510104 Appellant: Sharon Wooden General Manager s Hearing Date: March 22, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: April 11, 2016 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Office decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction. B. Property Address: 10354 W. Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024 Type of Case: Code and REAP (Combo) Case Number: CCRIS 557967 Appellant: United El Segundo Inc. General Manager s Hearing Date: May 17, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: June 10, 2016 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manger 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: 1536 W. Cambria St., Los Angeles, CA 90017 Type of Case: Code and Reap (Combo) APN: CCRIS 534303 Appellant: Sanover Enterprises, LLC General Manager s Hearing Date: May 24, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: June 10, 2016 The appellant filed an appeal of the General Manger s Hearing Officer s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) and the corresponding rent reduction.
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) 808-8685 or RAC Support at (213) 808-8838. The TDD telephone number for public information is (213) 978-3231. Mail all RAC correspondence to: Rent Adjustment Commission, 1200 W. 7th St, Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90017. For other questions or comments regarding specific appeals, hearings, or case scheduling please contact Hearing Section at (213) 808-8685. For general questions regarding Rent Stabilization, Code Enforcement, or SCEP please call (866) 557-RENT (7368) or (213) 808-8888. 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 1094.6. Under that provision, a petitioner may seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, 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.
August 18, 2016 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: Combo Appellant: Sharon Wooden Property Address: 2018 W 39 th St., Los Angeles, CA 90008 Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: 510104 Number of Units in CCRIS System: 4 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: February 10, 2016 REAP Appeal Due Date: February 25, 2016 REAP Appeal Received: February 17, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: March 22, 2016 General Manager s Decision: April 11, 2016 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing decision to affirm the Department s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) by the co-owner, Sharon Wooden. The appellant states that there is a legal dispute between the owner and one of her sisters, who is a tenant. The appellant claims that the sister has denied access and prevented her from making repairs. The owner also states the property will be sold soon. 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 27, 2015, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and on April 29, 2015 a Notice and Order to Comply was issued listing 45 violations. On June 8, 2015, a re-inspection was attempted. The owner did not appear and no access was provided. No corrections were observed. Additional re-inspections were attempted on October 6, 2015 and November 16, 2015. No interior access was provided and no corrections to the violations were observed.
CCRIS 510104 July 21, 2016 Page 2 On February 10, 2016, the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing, Notice of Acceptance into REAP, a Landlord s Right to Appeal and Unresolved Violation Report. A General Manager s Hearing was held on March 22, 2016. On April 11, 2016, a General Manager s Decision affirming the Department s placement of the property into REAP was issued. Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on March 22, 2016. HCIDLA Inspector Benito Perez appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Perez stated that there were 45 remaining violations as of the last inspection. No owner, owner representative, tenant, or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. The Hearing Officer read the request for hearing submitted by Sharon Wooden. The appeal stated that Sharon Wooden is a 1/3 owner of the property along with her two sisters and that they are in the middle of a trial to sell the building. The appeal also stated that there are no tenants at the property and that the owners receive no rental income. On April 11, 2016, HCIDLA issued a General Manager s Hearing Decision affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into REAP and the corresponding rent reduction. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC. 161.805 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. 162.06 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. 1200.07 SEVERITY LEVELS 1. Level 1 - Nuisance When the citing agency determines that the violation(s) creates a minimal untenantable situation, but is not unsafe, there shall be a ten percent (10%) reduction in rent. 2. Level 2 Incipient Hazard When the citing agency determines that the violation(s) creates untenantability which borders on being a hazard, there shall be a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in rent.
CCRIS 510104 July 21, 2016 Page 3 3. Level 3 Hazardous When the citing agency determines that the violation(s) creates untenantability which is hazardous, there shall be a twenty percent (20%) reduction in rent. REAP REG. 1200.11 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, Management Analyst Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, Compliance
3
4
5
August 18, 2016 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: Combo Appellant: Sanover Enterprises, LLC Property Address: 1536 W Cambria St., Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: 534303 Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: April 7, 2016 REAP Appeal Due Date: April 22, 2016 REAP Appeal Received: April 11, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: May 24, 2016 General Manager s Decision: June 10, 2016 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of the General Manager s decision to affirm the Department s decision to accept the building or unit into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) by the owner. The appellant states that the notice for the case was faulty and an inspector told the owner it was not necessary to attend the hearing. An email from the inspector was attached. 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 27, 2015, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on September 16, 2015 to JS Properties, LLC listing approximately 20 violations. A revised Notice and Order to Comply was issued on October 14, 2015 due to a faulty code section. On December 8, 2015, a re-inspection was conducted. Some violations were corrected, but new violations were also observed. A revised Notice to Comply was issued on December 21, 2015 to JS Properties, LLC listing approximately 6 violations. On February 2, 2016, a second re-inspection was conducted revealing 3 remaining violations.
CCRIS 534303 July 21, 2016 Page 2 On April 7, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing, Notice of Acceptance into REAP, a Landlord s Right to Appeal and Unresolved Violation Report to JS Properties, LLC and Sanover Ents LLC C/O Dare Property Management. On May 24, 2016, the General Manager s hearing was held. On June 10, 2016, a Decision affirming placement of the property into REAP was issued. Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on May 24, 2016. HCIDLA Inspector Bennie Perez appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Perez stated that the case was suspended due to new ownership and a new case was started on April 8, 2016. Inspector Perez stated that he was not presenting any evidence for this case. No owner, owner representative, tenant, or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On June 10, 2016, HCIDLA issued a General Manager s Hearing Decision affirming the Department s decision to accept the building into REAP. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS LAMC SEC. 161.805 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. 162.06 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. 1200.07 SEVERITY LEVELS 1. Level 1 - Nuisance When the citing agency determines that the violation(s) creates a minimal untenantable situation, but is not unsafe, there shall be a ten percent (10%) reduction in rent. 2. Level 2 Incipient Hazard When the citing agency determines that the violation(s) creates untenantability which borders on being a hazard, there shall be a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in rent. 3. Level 3 Hazardous When the citing agency determines that the violation(s) creates untenantability which is hazardous, there shall be a twenty percent (20%) reduction in rent.
CCRIS 534303 July 21, 2016 Page 3 REAP REG. 1200.11 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