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, December 3, :00 P.M. Garland Office Hearing Room 1200 West 7 th Street # 100 Los Angeles, CA Note: Please see security desk upon entering the building. COMMISSIONERS Tai Glenn, Chairperson Carole Brogdon, Vice Chairperson Leonora Gershman Pitts Paula Leftwich Jane Paul Dash Stolarz Sam E. Lucas 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. HEARINGS REPORT Review of the Hearings Section appeals workload. III. RAC DISCUSSION ON SCHEDULING APPEALS Review and discussion of Appeals scheduling.

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 length 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: December 10, 2015 (Special) January 7, 2016 January 21, 2016 February 4, 2016 IRC: January 14, 2016 January 28, 2016 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 case: A. Property Address: 9051 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Sun Valley, CA Type of Case: Just & Reasonable Case Number: CA Appellants: List attached General Manager s Hearing Date: August 5, 2015 General Manager s Hearing Decision Date: September 22, 2015 Thirty five (35) appellants filed an appeal of the General Manager s Hearing Officer s decision to approve the landlord s application for a Just and Reasonable permanent rent increase of $ per unit, per month and a supplemental surcharge of $4.46 per unit for 12 months.

3 II. MEETING 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 TTY telephone number for public information is (213) Mail all RAC correspondence to: Rent Adjustment Commission, 1200 W. 7 th 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 Appellants for Just & Reasonable Case CA NAME SPACE # Simon & Isidra Gonzalez 1 Juan Oscar Jimenez 2 Maria Alas 4 Magdaleno Villarreal 5 Javier Trujillo 6 Joan Herlihy 7 Sergio Lopez 8 Mauricio Diaz 9 Judith A. Duncklee 11 Ricardo Chaves 16 Emilia Bueno 18 Ofelia Vizarraga 19 Alberto & Susan Soto 20 Jonathan Maya & Griselda Magaña 24 George Niblett 25 Shirley Hurban 26 Adolfo Contreras & Maria Elena Martinez 28 Maria Gutierrez & Claudia V. 29 Ruben Arciniega 31 Javier Perez 33 Maria Lopes 35 Erlinda Vargas 36 Raymundo Castro 38 Angel & Ernestina Echavarria 39 Maria Orquidia Franco 43 Griselda Serrano 45 Luis Davalos 49 Fidel Hernandes 50 Efrain & Janneth Garcia 51 Felicitas Ureña 52 Juan Torres 53 Gino Guerrero 56 Guillermo Deharo 57 Janet Rodrigez 58 Esther Mendiola 59

5 RENT STABILIZATION DIVISION CASE ANALYSIS P.O. Box 57398, Los Angeles, CA Tel fax hcidla.lacity.org November 10, 2015 Commissioners of the Rent Adjustment Commission 1200 W. 7 th Street Los Angeles, CA RE: APPEAL CONCERNING HEARING OFFICER S DECISION OF CASE NO. CA LAUREL CANYON BLVD., SUN VALLEY, CA 91352, APN The Just & Reasonable application for a 60-space, Mobilehome Park property located at 9051 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Sun Valley, CA 91352, APN , was received by the Department on March 30, 2015, and was accepted on April 14, The initial Hearing of the proposed Just & Reasonable rent increase was held on August 5, Hearing Officer Patricia A. Clemens rendered her decision on September 22, 2015, approving the recommended increase of $ per unit per month, as well as the supplemental surcharge of $4.46 for 12 months. The appellants filed for an appeal with the Department on October 5, The appellants allege that approval of the just and reasonable rent increase was an abuse of discretion, and that there is new evidence/information, pursuant to LAMC Section B.3.d. DISCUSSION: The Appellants claim that the Hearing Officer: 1. Approved the Department s recommended increase in full and they cannot afford it. 2. Approved the Department s recommended increase in full and it is unfair because nothing is fixed and they want to see improvements. 3. Did not permit them to present evidence at the hearing. Section of the Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) Guidelines states: Both landlords and tenants may offer documents, testify, or provide written declarations of evidence as may be pertinent [emphasis added]. The Hearing Officer shall hear and receive all evidence submitted by any party at the hearing.

6 APPEAL CONCERNING HEARING OFFICER S DECISION OF CASE NO. CA Appeal Hearing Date December 3, 2015 Page 2 Items 1 & 2: The appellants claim that the Hearing Officer s Decision to approve the recommended increase and supplemental surcharge in full is an abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion is based on their inability to pay the rent increase and they feel it is unfair to pay more due to the condition of the Mobilehome Park. LAMC Section of the Guidelines states: The Ordinance authorizes Hearing Officers to grant rent increases or surcharges where the maximum rent or the maximum adjusted rent does not constitute a Just and Reasonable return in accordance with such Guidelines as the RAC may establish. The owner s gross income increased by 83.41% between the base and current years, which represents an inflation factor of 40%. Total expenses, however, increased by % during the same period. The net effect of which is that the property s net operating income declined by 10.56% between 1998 and As the Hearing Officer pointed out to the tenants during the hearing, the issue is not whether the landlord spent on improvements the tenants would like to see, but that the money was spent for the improvements the owner is claiming. Items 3: The appellants claim that the Hearing Officer did not allow them to present evidence at the hearing. All of the tenants who desired to speak were heard by the Hearing Officer. Many of the tenants complained about the state of the roads and driveways in the Mobilehome Park which was not deemed pertinent to the case, as none of the expenses included in the J&R calculation were for asphalt/cement repair/replacement. Some tenants brought photos of the problems at the property. The tenants were instructed that they could file a complaint. As the Hearing Officer stated in her report, There was no evidence submitted that the ledgers and other accounting documents submitted by the landlord were not accurate. RECOMMENDATION SUSTAIN the Hearing Officer s decision approving the rental increase of $ and the Supplemental Surcharge of $4.46 for 12 months.