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, April 27, :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. RAC QUARTERLY REPORT A. Review of the RAC Quarterly Report for the 3 rd Quarter (July to September) B. Approval of the RAC Quarterly Report for the 3rd Quarter (July to September) III. DISCUSSION OF RAC REGULATION 410 REDUCTION OF SERVICES A. Discussion of RAC Regulation 410 Reduction of Services B. Motion to Refer RAC Regulation 410 Reduction of Services to the Internal Review Committee IV. STAFF PRESENTATIONS ON TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TRP) Staff presentation on TRP process

2 V. 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. VI. 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. VII. FUTURE MEETINGS (tentative) RAC: May 4, 2017 May 18, 2017 June 1, 2017 June 15, 2017 IRC: May 11, 2017 May 25, 2017 APPEALS BOARD I. 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: 210 N. Park View St., Los Angeles, CA Type of Case: Release of Escrow (ROE) Case Number: CCRIS Bernabe Miranda and Rene Clara General Manager s Hearing Date: February 23, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: March 16, 2017 Two tenants filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to approve the release of REAP escrow funds for completed repairs in the amount of $6, B. Property Address: 231 W. 108 th St.., Los Angeles, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS Tanya Solano General Manager s Hearing Date: January 18, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: February 10, 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.

3 C. Property Address: 7303 N. Alabama Ave., Canoga Park, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS Marcia Davalos General Manager s Hearing Date: January 4, 2017 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: February 1, 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. D. Property Address: 1219 S. Sycamore Ave., Los Angeles, CA Type of Case: Combo Case Number: CCRIS James Pickens General Manager s Hearing Date: December 20, 2016 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: January 20, 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. II. 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.

4 April 27, 2017 Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 West 7 th Street, 1 st Floor Los Angeles, CA APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER S DECISION Type of Case: Release of Escrow Owner: Adam & Broadway, LLC Appellants: Bernabe Miranda and Rene Clara Property Address: 210 N Park View St., Los Angeles, CA CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 4 Date of General Manager s Hearing: February 23, 2017 Date of General Manager s Decision: March 16, 2017 INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal by two tenants of a Decision to approve the release of REAP escrow funds to the owner for repairs. The tenants say that the property has not been repaired appropriately and that there are still leaks at the property. BACKGROUND On October 16, 2015, HCIDLA opened REAP escrow account number for the subject property. On or about January 25, 2017, HCIDLA received an application for the release of REAP escrow funds from the owner, Adam & Broadway, LLC requesting $6, for completed repairs. A General Manager s Hearing on the application was held on February 23, On March 16, 2017, the General Manager issued a decision approving the release of escrow funds for repairs in the amount of $6, SUMMARY OF GENERAL MANAGER S HEARING Patrick Braganza appeared on behalf of HCIDLA and testified that Adam & Broadway, LLC submitted an application requesting the release of REAP escrow funds in the amount of $6, for completed repairs. He stated the applicant submitted receipts and estimates totaling $1, was attached to the application. Mr. Braganza stated that after deducting administrative fees and expenditures, the balance in the escrow account was $9, The owner s representative, Mel Billones, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. The owner explained there was a small discrepancy between the Home Depot receipts and the amount requested because the owner received a discount from their Home Depot account. The owner said that he did not have formal receipts for the labor because they used handymen and paid cash. The Hearing Officer allowed the owner to submit additional documentation after the hearing. Tenants from units 210 and unit 212 appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. They said that the landlord has not done all the needed repairs at the property, and there continues to be multiple leaks in their units. 3

5 CCRIS # April 27, 2017 Page 2 On March 16, 2017, a General Manager s Hearing Decision was issued approving the release of REAP escrow funds in the amount of $6, payable to the owner. ORDINANCE AND REGULATION SECTIONS Rent Adjustment Commission Regulation B.2.b REAP Escrow Account B. Withdrawals from the escrow account 2. While a unit/building is in REAP, a Landlord, Tenant, Enforcement Agency and/or any creditor may apply to the General Manager for a release of funds from the escrow ac-count. Withdrawals may be for the following reasons b. When necessary for the correction of deficiencies including, but not limited to, those that caused the unit/building to be placed in REAP Los Angeles Municipal Code B SEC Escrow Account B. Withdrawals from Escrow Account. 2. A landlord, any tenant, any Enforcement Agency, any interested party, and any creditor may apply to the General Manager for a release of funds from the escrow account, in accordance with the regulations the RAC shall enact. Withdrawals may be for the following reasons, in addition to other reasons adopted by regulation b. When necessary for the correction of deficiencies, including but not limited to those that caused the acceptance into REAP; Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Scope of Review The Appeals Board review of the General Manager s decision shall be limited to those alleged errors of law or fact occurring at the hearing specified in the Notice of Appeal. The Board shall 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 Division 4

6 April 27, 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 Tanya Solano Property Address: 231 W 108 th St., Los Angeles, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 3 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: August 11, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: September 20, 2016, November 29, 2016, and January 18, 2017 General Manager s Decision: November 1, 2016, December 30, 2016, and February 10, 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 the tenants are being hostile and they have begun eviction proceedings. 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 25, 2016, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on June 2, 2016 listing approximately 14 violations. On July 15, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 12 remaining violations. The remaining violations included unapproved electrical work, unapproved plumbing work, lack of hot water, and maintenance. On August 11, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. The first General Manager s Hearing was scheduled for September 20, The hearing was continued twice, to November 29, 2016 and January 18, On February 10, 2017, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. 3

7 CCRIS April 27, 2017 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearings The first General Manager s hearing was held on September 20, The owner explained that she took possession of the property in March of 2016 and has had trouble getting tenant cooperation. The Hearing Officer provided a continuance. The second hearing was held on November 29, A representative for the owner appeared and requested a continuance because the owner was due to give birth soon. The third General Manager s hearing was convened on January 18, HCIDLA Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. He stated the 12 violations remained unresolved. The Hearing Officer noted that the owner requested a continuance by . She noted that the said the owner did not have doctor s clearance to drive and lived over 100 miles from the hearing location. No owner, owner representative, tenant, or tenant representative appeared at the third hearing. On February 10, 2017, 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

8 April 27, 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 Marcia Davalos Property Address: 7303 N Alabama Ave., Canoga Park, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: December 15, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: January 4, 2016 General Manager s Decision: February 1, 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 he is requesting more time because they did not know that a zoning variance was not possible for this case. 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 16, 2016, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on August 3, 2016 listing approximately 16 violations. On September 29, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 7 remaining violations. On December 15, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On January 4, 2017, the General Manager s hearing was held. On February 1, 2017, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. 3

9 CCRIS April 27, 2017 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on January 4, HCIDLA Inspector Steven Harrison appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Harrison stated that there were 7 remaining violations as of the last inspection. Inspector Harrison said that the remaining violations were for wall/ceiling maintenance, improper use of extension cords, illegal construction, and unapproved units. The owner, Marcia Davalos, appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. She stated that she has been working with her council person s office to obtain a zoning variance so that the units can be approved. If a variance cannot be obtained, she said she will get into compliance by returning the property back to its original permitted condition. She said the patio was permitted and approved as an addition in 1992 and no additional work has been done since that time. She said the extension cord and wall/ceiling maintenance violations were corrected before the re-inspection. She said her father passed away on June 26, 2016 and he was the primary caretaker of the property. No tenant or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On February 1, 2017, 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

10 April 27, 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 James Pickens Property Address: 1219 S Sycamore Ave., Los Angeles, CA Subject to RSO: Yes CCRIS Case Number: Number of Units in CCRIS System: 2 Notice of Acceptance into REAP: December 5, 2016 General Manager s Hearing: December 20, 2016 General Manager s Decision: January 20, 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 he is requesting more time because he did not received the original documents on time. 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 5, 2016, a SCEP inspection was conducted at the subject property. Violations were observed and a Notice and Order to Comply was issued on August 8, 2016 listing approximately 6 violations. On September 20, 2016, a re-inspection was conducted revealing 3 remaining violations. On December 5, 2016 the Department issued a Notice of General Manager s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into REAP. On December 20, 2016, the General Manager s hearing was held. On January 20, 2017, a General Manager s decision was issued affirming placement into REAP. An appeal to the RAC Appeals Board was received after the deadline to appeal with an explanation that the appeal was mailed to the wrong address. 3

11 CCRIS April 27, 2017 Page 2 Summary of General Manager s Hearing The General Manager s hearing was convened on December 20, HCIDLA Inspector Barry Craddolph appeared at the hearing and provided testimony. Inspector Craddolph stated that there were 3 remaining violations as of the last inspection. Inspector Craddolph said that the remaining violations were for carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, and insect screens. No owner, owner representative, tenant, or tenant representative appeared at the hearing. On January 20, 2017, 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