BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS CITY oF Los ANGELE~ …

BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS

GENETHIA HUDLEY -HAYES PRESIDENT

CASIMIRO U. TOLENTINO VICE PRESIDENT

DIANA M. BONTA ANDREW FRIEDMAN

JILL FURILLO

July 20, 2010

Public Safety Committee City of Los Angeles Room 375, City Hall

CITY oF Los ANGELE~ CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR

Attention: John White, Legislative Assistant II

2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE ASSESSMENT APPEALS

FIRE DEPARTMENT

MILLAGE PEAKS FIRE CHIEF

6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 451 Van Nuys California 91401

(818)374-1111 FAX: (818) 778-4910

http:/fwww.lafd.org

The Board of Fire Commissioners reviewed and approved the attached 2009 Brush Clearance Report, Proposed Decisions and Recommendations on July 13, 2010. This report is being transmitted to the City Clerk for placement on the City Council calendar.

The Public Safety Committee meeting is scheduled for July 26, 2010, at 9:30a.m. Property owners whose appeal was denied may submit newly discovered or additional evidence that was not presented at the time of their hearing before the Board of Fire Commissioners, to the Public Safety Sub-Committee of City Council for review. The Public Safety Committee will render a decision based on the new or additional evidence presented and the recommendation of the Board of Fire Commissioners. Upon City Council adoption of the report, the Fire Department will forward the report to the Los Angeles County Tax Collector for placement on the Los Angeles County 2010 Property Tax rolls.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Brush Clearance Unit at (818) 778-4902.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Knight, Commander Los Angeles Fire Department Brush Clearance Unit

Attachment

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY- AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT BRUSH CLEARANCE UNIT

2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE ASSESSMENT HEARINGS

REPORT, PROPOSED DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNCIL APN# PROPERTY OWNER DISTRICT 2017014008 HANSON, DAVID W & LIBERTY 3 2017018022 KOSHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP 3 2017018023 KOSHMAN CONSTRUCTION 3 2017018024 KOSHMAN CONSTRUCTION 3 2023004021 BENITEZ,LUIS G & MARIA E 3 2027022016 WANWU 3 2074010058 DREYER,JERROLD S & CRACHEL 3 2076003044 LEE, CHEN-CHANG 3 2076004026 GABRIELZADEH,GADY 3 2076019032 FREEMAN,JULIO H & GLORIA L TR 3 2149013059 NIKI DELIJANI/JOHN ARDALAN 3 2149014020 SHERIF ,JACOB 3 2166006014 KASHANI,DAVOUD Y 3 2166013108 BELLA MONTAGNA HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 3 2168003024 GEVORGYANTS,STEPAN 3 2168014041 TRUST HOLDING SERVICE TR 3 2170001023 REZKO,JOHN D 3 2172029065 BISOGNI,CARLOS A 3 2181027014 AKHLAGHFAR,NASSER 5 2184016008 HESPERIDES LLC 5 2190012061 KOKABI,YAi-iYA & ZOHREH S 3 2272025017 STEELE,COREY L 5 2274010005 SHAHRAM GHALILI 5 2274016023 SITOWEST LLC 5 2274016024 TYREMAN INT./CRLOS BONDANELLI. 5 2274022009 EL VALLE DE LAS DELICIAS 5 2274025033 FARIBORZ ATLASSI 5 2274025034 FARIBORZ ATLASSI 5 2275026006 !WOLCOTT, DOROTHY F TRUST 5 ~281022007 AHN,.KATHERINE K 2 2284019008 RUDDY, JAMES A Ill 5 2286022020 NAZARI,AHMAD & AZITA H 2 2289010003 HANSON, ROGER S 5 2289016033 ESHAGHIAN,MASSOUD J & GEORGE ME 5 2292008011 ROTHSTEIN, GLEN A 5

' COUNCIL APN# PROPERTY OWNER DISTRICT 2292008038 LIPKIN, ARTUR & INNA 3 2292020027 STOMEL,JOSHUA A 5 2293008027 HORIZON,ARASH 11 2378021005 ESPER, EMAD & JAMAL B 4 2378021006 ESPER,EMAD & JAMAL B 4 2381004005 WALIA, JUMUH 2 2384009026 HIGNITE, WILLIAM C CO TRUST 2 2384015028 INDYMAC BANK FSB 2 2384017009 MEYLIKER, VLADIMIR 5 2385003041 DE LA NUEZ,GEORGE 2 2385019042 BO LEE MACDONALD TR 2 2385019048 KONIALIAN,JIRAIR 2 2386028017 SUGERMAN,ANDREW TRUST 2 2401027031 EUN SUG CHA TR 6 2403009064 EIDIAN,VAZGEN 6 2403014002 PORTNER, MICHAEL G 6 2403020030 DARBINYAN,KARMEN 6 2404005002 MIRZA YAN,ANAHID TRUST 6 2404016025 DAVIS, MIKE 6 2425009010 CHERNYAVSKY,IGOR 4 2531030026 AZAT,ISSA V 2 2536026025 GOODE, THERESA R 2 2542007008 SHADOW HILLS ESTATES LLC 6 2542015012 MARAR,MAURICE S 6 2542028002 LONNY ROOT & PAUL MARRA 6 2544009007 LOH INVESTMENT L P 6 2544012007 KINIKIN, LESLIE 6 2545002002 SCHUL TZ,STEVE M 2 2545002003 TANABE,ROBERT M & BILLIE J 2 2545024014 CLANCY,JAMES J & HOPE B 2 2546012017 GASPARIAN,VARDANUSH 2 2547010034 TEKHILA INVESTMENTS LLC 2 2547012003 DOROMAL,PHIL N & JOY F 2 2547013022 HILLROSE INVESTMENTS LLC 2 2550009009 LAWS,LAWRENCE E & LAURA 2 2552031016 SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 2 2560036017 SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 2 2560036018 SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 2

COUNCIL APN# PROPERTY OWNER DISTRICT 2561003034 LUKE VELLA 2 2562011021 MAF INVESTMENTS LLC 2 2563026006 WHITEBIRD INC 2 2563031017 TABASHNICK,SIMON M 2 2563031019 SOLUK,GEORGE 2 2563031023 MAF INVESTMENTS LLC 2 2563042005 GRIGORYAN,SUSANNA 2 2563042012 AYALA,JULIO C & MARITZA Y 2 2564027021 ESCOBAR,HERBERT & MAYA 2 2569013031 RASSP,HERMAN TR ETAL 2 2569013032 RASSP,HERMAN & BEVERLY ATR 2 2569025023 BRIGHT,JAMES H & LINDA A 2 2601023050 ATHOS INVESTMENTS LLC 12 2601038062 KARAOGHLANIAN,VARTAN L 12 2701007006 MICHELLE & BLAKE WELLS 12 2723005034 COLMER,WAYNE & ROBERTA TR 12 2723005049 COLMER,WAYNE & ROBERTA TR 12 2724011022 HUPPERT, LARRY & SUSAN 12 2820008002 LAGAST,SONJA L 12 2820008007 BEVERLY REAGAN 12 4352001037 GORDON,ROBERT 5 4352001047 JACOB WIZMAN 5 4352008048 MIRDAMADI,AMIR B & LINDA M 5 1_352009024 MIRDAMADI,AMIREH M 5 4352001048 JACOB WIZMAN 5 4371025015 KPODO,FRANK & MARCIA 5 4371030005 VON RATH,RENATE TRUST 5 4371032014 FARHAD,YAGHABI 5 4371046009 NELSON, ERIC 5 4371046012 NELSON, ERIC 5 4377009007 FONDA, PETER 11 4377015003 AUDREY THOMPSON-PLAGER 11 4378003004 GIRO PROPERTIES LLC 11 4378011015 GIRO PROPERTIES LLC 11 4383006020 FISHER,GRETCHEN A 5 4383008001 HILLARY LEVIN 5

COUNCIL ~PN# PROPERTY OWNER DISTRICT 4383015028 KANTOR,JAMES R 5 4384019017 TOWER PARK PROPERTIES LLC 5 4387025001 WIZMAN- JACOB LO TRUST 5 4388006027 MC GHEE,DANIEL 5 4388008028 HAUCK,ANNE 5 4388018022 ADRIAN RUDOMIN 5 14402031002 BRANDLIN,JEFFREY E & KAREN 11 4410002011 GRAHAM,THOMAS I 11 4414022007 MILLAR, GRACE 11 4416008013 BADT, JONATHON D AND MICHAEL R 11 4416021044 GREEN, DAVID W & lLANA 11 4416021045 GREEN,DAVID W & lLANA 11 5027004013 HOZAY,EMMITT 0 10 5029016035 PICKARD,FLORENCE T TRUST 10 5029029006 PRESCOTT, ENNIS JR CO TRUST 10 5029040007 OATTS,CHARLES B 10 5031006014 JOHNS,AL TON W 1 5209034021 SMITH,THOMAS W 14 5214005007 CASTANEDA,ANTHONY 14 5215005001 BROWNFIELD, MICHAEL L 14 5216009036 GOMEZ, DELRINA 14 5216017014 WENDYSAUN 14 5420037022 ANGELA WOOD 4 5429029029 HARRIS, LAURIE 4 5430023029 TEBELEKIAN,MISAK & TAKUHI 4 5431037020 COBB,HOSEA . 13 5438017016 HASHIBA,CHAN CHARISE 4 5443022003 CHANEY, DAVID D 4 5443022006 LIN, FREDERICK T CO TRUST 4 5451020009 TABONE, DEREK L 1 5451022008 SAL TZBURG INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP 1 5451022009 SHAW REALTY HOLDINGS 1 5451022033 DON WALTON 1 5451022034 DON WALTON 1 5451024022 SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN 1 5451024023 SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN 1 5451024024 SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN 1

' COUNCIL APN# PROPERTY OWNER DISTRICT 5452001003 MARIA C. OROZCO 1 5452011018 KETSOYAN,VARDUI 1 5452011019 KETSOYAN,VARDUI 1 5452012015 JOHNSTONE, DARIN R & LORA D 1 5452013006 DELAO,GENARO 1 5452016028 SIMZAR,BAHRAM 1 5452018032 RAUDA,DELIA 1 5454013016 LUBOWICZ,LEO 1 5454018011 BURTON,BRIAN J 1 5454020017 MOORE, LUCILE TRUST 1 5454020043 GONZALEZ,JULIA R & MYRNA 1 5454020044 WONG,JOHNNY C 1 5454021015 BAHRAM SIMZAR 1 5459023007 KAREN S. PATON 13 5462001030 DR. GILBERT VARELA 13 5462003023 MONTGOMERY,ELIZABETH 13 5462004005 YAGHOUB AYNEHCHR 13 5462009013 JONES,ARTIS 13 5462010010 SAVAGE LIGHTHOUSE, LLC 13

. 5462010029 ZHAO,JOY 13 5462028014 BARRIONUEVO,MARTHA 0 13 5464001037 ALEX JIMENEZ 1 5464001038 ALEX JIMENEZ 1 5464001039 ALEX JIMENEZ 1 5464001040 ALEX JIMENEZ 1 5464002016 GARABET FAMILY TRUST 1 5464004030 STEWART FAMILY TRUST 1 5464030021 DAVIDGIPS 1 5466010010 BABAKHAN,SHARON 1 5467022009 PRYOR, RONALD 4 5467023029 FIFTY TWO INC. 1 5471015030 49 TERRACE LLC/PHILLIP RODRIGUEZ 1 5473031056 SAMUEL CHO C/0 NASADA CORP 4 5475019031 KHATRI FAMILY TRUST 1 5475019032 KHATRI FAMILY TRUST 1 5475019033 KHATRI FAMILY TRUST 1 5492035015 ELY, VIRGINIA 4

COUNCIL APN# PROPERTY OWNER DISTRICT 5549005010 JAVID,KAYVON H 4 5549005011 THOMPSON,PERCY R & EDNA 4 5556011015 IMPROVED LOTS LLC 4 5556011025 IMPROVED LOTS LLC 4 5556011051 IMPROVED LOTS LLC 4 5556024021 LALAMA,ELENA E 4 5556024030 ROCKE,ROBERT S & DINAH D TR 4 5556027001 DIHNO,AHARON 4 5558012026 RAMON WILSON 4 5559015002 LERNER,MICHELINE TRUST 4 5562006010 AL,WARDI DHIA A & HANAA ET 2 5563002010 YEH,FRANK Y & GRACE W 2 5563002011 YEH,FRANK Y & GRACE W 2 5563002012 YEH,FRANK Y & GRACE W 2 5563002013 YEH,FRANK Y & GRACE W 2 5563009029 LICHT,A MARSHALL 2 5564009011 ARKADY ROZENBERA 2 5565016001 CHAFIR,MAXIMILIEN 2 5565039003 KING,DEREK 2 5567018011 PAKKIDIS,GEORGE 4 5567031014 BRITTINGHAM, SAMUEL L. 4 5576009055 FITZGERALD, DANIEL ~ 5576009096 SANTOS,FERNANDO I & MARIA E 4 5577032014 PACTERAINC 4 5577032015 YASHENG YANG 4 5577033007 iPACTERAINC 4 5579001014 SCHMIT,STEVEN C 4 5579035014 HUGH I BIELE 4 5587014019 SHULGOLD, ROBERT L TRUST 4 5684023017 LAI MACK 14 5691024040 NINA GOREE /KEVIN POLIN 14

1

REPORT AND PROPOSED DECISION

ON ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR 2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE

HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: HANSON, DAVID W & LIBERTY MAILING ADDRESS: 17163 GLEDHILL ST NORTHRIDGE, CA 91325 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 75FT S/O 24178 JENSEN DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2017014008 ASSESSMENT: $1171

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$145 $1026 $1171

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, David Hanson appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that for the past twenty years he has owned three properties in this area. Appellant stated he is knowledgeable of his brush clearing responsibility and has always complied in the past and stated he did not receive any notices in 2009 regarding noncompliance on any of his properties. Appellant stated that he was upset and receiving this billing and did not understand why after years this property all of a sudden was in need of clearing. Appellant stated that he moved in January 2009 from 7900 Vicky Ave, West Hills, CA, 91304, to a home he purchased at 17163 Gledhill St. Northridge, CA, 91325. Appellant stated that upon moving into his new home he change his mailing address on all his properties and even forwarded his mail. Appellant produced a notice that the post office had placed a mail fraud alert on the address he moved from and therefore mail was not forwarded to him per US postal regulations and that this could be why he did not receive notice until the bill on this property found its way to him in. Appellant stated his addresses for mailing are current on this parcel and for 2017-014-010 and 2017-014-009 and he has never received any notice or billings on these other two properties. Appellant stated he believed his properties were in compliance at the time of the Inspectors visit.

2

HANSON, DAVID W & LIBERTY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2017014008 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 17, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector mailed and posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was not afforded to the Appellant with respect to the mailed notice. There is record that mail was returned. Mail returned shows Appellant‟s forwarding address by the post office, though states that time for forwarding had expired. Current title records confirm all three properties owned by Appellant have his forwarding, which is his current home address (17163 Gledhill St, Northridge, CA 91325) a home he purchased February 14, 2008. Appellant‟s address and information as record owner of the forwarding address on the return mail to the Fire Department was easily accessible to the Fire Department and available in the title records had a search of title records been done at the time of the return mailings. Inspector did state that the posted notice on this land would be visible from the dirt road. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Appellant stated he is a contractor and familiar with the Los Angeles brush clearance requirements and would have complied immediately if he had been given adequate notice. Inspector confirmed Appellant did comply with clearing the contiguous property he owns (2017-014-009) prior to the inspection on this parcel and has had a history that shows his good faith to comply with brush clearing responsibilities. Inspector did state that parcel 2017-014-010 was outside of the 200-foot clearance requirement. A review of the City Contractor billing statement shows

3

HANSON, DAVID W & LIBERTY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2017014008 Page 3 that parcel 2017-014-010 was also cleared at a cost of $150.00. Appellant is unaware of any billing in regard to this parcel therefore was not able to appeal This parcel Fire Department search of APIS today is reflecting outdated information. A title record search today does show the current mailing address of Appellant. The Fire Department may require more than the minimum specific requirements set forth in the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 52.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation, when the Chief determines that conditions exist, which necessitate greater fire protection measures. Fire Department is requested to immediately update Appellant‟s current address for parcels 2017-014-010 and 2017-014-009. The total assessment due is $658.

4

REPORT AND PROPOSED DECISION ON ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR

2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181024 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: KOSHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP MAILING ADDRESS: 19531 PARTHENIA ST NORTHRIDE, CA 91324 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L CORNER OF OAKMONT PL & LIMEROCK TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2017018022 ASSESSMENT: $1106

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$80 $1026 $1106

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated the he never received any notices regarding this property. The record shows that all notices were in fact sent to the wrong address and all notices were returned to the Department. He was deeded the property during the process, but did not receive proper notice. The Fire Department did not receive his new supplemental address until March 04, 2010. The Appellant did not receive due process. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 16, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

5

KOSHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2017018022 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed for an amount less that set forth in the notice. The Fire Department confirms that all notices were sent to the wrong address and that the Appellant was not afforded due process. The Fire Department was correct in clearing the property and abating the fire risk for which the Appellant benefited and will be held responsible for the cost of clearing. The total assessment due is $80.

6



COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$80 $1026 $1106


7



8



COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$80 $1026 $1106


9



10


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: BENITEZ, LUIS G & MARIA E MAILING ADDRESS: 751 E. BROCKTON AVE.#1 REDLANDS,CA 92374 SITUS ADDRESS: VALERIO ST 22041 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2023004021 ASSESSMENT: $1276

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$250 $1026 $1276

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 17, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 25, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 24, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 24, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

11

BENITEZ, LUIS G & MARIA E ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2023004021 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,276.

12


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: WAN WU MAILING ADDRESS: 7301 POMELO DR WEST HILLS CA 913071225 SITUS ADDRESS: 7301 POMELO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2027022016 ASSESSMENT: $1826

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$800 $1026 $1826

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He bought this property, his first house, and closed escrow on September 3, 2009. He did not receive any of the notices, as he was not the owner at either the time of the first notice or the time the property was posted at the re-inspection. The Fire Department shows that all notices were returned. The supplemental address for this Appellant was not noted until February 23, 2010. The Appellant believes that since he was not the owner at the time of the clearance, he should not be held liable. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 20, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 22, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 22, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

13

WAN WU ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2027022016 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been disallowed. The Appellant was not the owner at the time of the clearance; hence, should not be held responsible for the former owner‟s brush clearance. The Appellant was not afforded due process. The City Contractor cleared the property before the Appellant purchased it. Recommendation it is recommended that the cost of clearance and all fees be rescinded. The total assessment due is $0.00.

14


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: DREYER, JERROLD S & C RACHEL MAILING ADDRESS: 4849 VAN NUYS BLVD. #105 SHERMAN OAKS CA 914032121 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACROSS FROM 22714 CREOLE RD. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2074010058 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has bee confirmed in the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant who

15

DREYER, JERROLD S & C RACHEL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2074010058 Page 2 Failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1,226.

16


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184012 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: LEE, CHEN-CHANG MAILING ADDRESS: 2232 LIANE LN SANTA ANA CA 927053393 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/E OF 4810 ROSA RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076003044 ASSESSMENT: $1626

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$600 $1026 $1626

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the hearing. The record further shows that the

17

LEE, CHEN-CHANG ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076003044 Page 2 Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the Hazardous conditions which existed at the time of the clearance h

The total assessment due is $1.626.

18


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: GABRIELZADEH, GADY MAILING ADDRESS: 4959 DOMAN AVE TARZANA CA 913564311 SITUS ADDRESS: VL SW 22626 HOLANDA DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076004026 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 19, 2010, at 10:15 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 26, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

19

GABRIELZADEH, GADY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076004026 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1426.

20


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: FREEMAN, JULIO H & GLORIA L TR MAILING ADDRESS: 22382 ALGUNAS RD WOODLAND HILLS CA 913645001 SITUS ADDRESS: 22382 ALGUNAS RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076019032 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Mr. Julio Freeman and Ms. Gloria Freeman appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 19, 2010, at 1:00 PM. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant Mr. Freeman acknowledged receipt of the red-posted notice, and the Official Notification letters that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that he and his wife believed that the clean-up work they had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellants added that they were told in 1992, when they first purchased the property that their property line extended up to the concrete drain that ran though the property, and they would not have set out to deliberately partially comply with the clean up. In fact, they stated that the subject year was the first in which there had been problems with clearance. Appellants stated that there was enduring confusion as to where their property line extended up to, and the information they relied upon was what they were told

21

FREEMAN, JULIO H & GLORIA L TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076019032 Page 2 By their realtor first, and later by someone at the County Assessor‟‟ office, that their property did not include the area beyond the concrete drain or “wash.” Appellants stated that while they agreed they would pay for the cost of clearance, they appealed the imposed administrative fee. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 26, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. First and second notifications, namely, “Clear down slope to your property line (fence) with 4655 & 4651 Cerrillos Drive.” [Emphasis added]. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup.

22

FREEMAN, JULIO H & GLORIA L TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2076019032 Page 3 Not only does the responsibility rests with the property owners to know the extent of their lot, the Department Inspector provided specific instruction in both the first and second notifications that the area up to the property line (the fence) needed to be cleared. Appellant‟s contention that it took them eighteen years to find out their property extended to the fence is not deemed sufficient to waive the Assessment fee. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,426.

23


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009184026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: NIKI DELIJANI/JOHN AROALAN MAILING ADDRESS: 20881 KELVIN PL WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367-6725 SITUS ADDRESS: 20881 KELVIN PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2149013059 ASSESSMENT: $1206

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$180 $1026 $1206

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, John Ardalan appeared with his Real Estate Broker, Mai Matthesen-from RE/Max Olson & Associates in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that title was recorded in his name through a short sale purchase on July 7, 2009. He states that he never received any notices to clear brush or that the property was in violation. As a contractor himself he had his own workers clear the property in October 2009 when he finally had access to the property. Appellant states that the Sellers of the property remained in the property for approximately four months, as agreed, as tenants after his purchase and moved out in late October never giving him any notices from the Fire Department or telling him the Fire Department had cleared the property. Appellant requests a financial hardship due to two children attending college, a wife with leukemia losing her eyesight, evicting tenants in two other properties he owns for not paying of rent and states he is suffering financially in his construction business. Appellant further stated that if he was aware of the fire department notices he would have been able to comply and would have done so immediately. Appellant presented documentation of an envelope mailed by the Fire Department dated March 30, 2010, to Niki Delijani (the previous owner) at the

24

NIKI DELIJANI/JOHN AROALAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2149013059 Page 2 situs address as proof that he was not receiving notices at which time he promptly contacted the Fire Department to update his address. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 6, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount less than that set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. Fire Department records reflect that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Fire Department records indicate a phone call on September 1, 2009, was received by owner leaving a phone number of 818-914-5215. Inspector stated he remembered speaking with a man over the telephone. Appellant states that this has never been his number and he has never contacted the Fire Department on that date and never spoke with this Inspector. Appellant stated that he thinks the call may have been the previous owner residing in the property that obtained the notice on the property. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. City Contractor notes no work completed by the owner. Owner did not receive a Form F-1307 Cleaned by Owner Inspection Report, which would serve as proof of work completion. Appellant has presented evidence of some financial hardship along with a good faith attempt by Appellant to comply with brush his clearance responsibilities upon taking physical possession of the property. Therefore it is recommended that the fees be reduced by $300.00.It is recommended that the appellant be required to pay the total assessment cost of $906.00 The total assessment due is $906.

25


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184027 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: SHERIF, JACOB MAILING ADDRESS: 20874 KELVIN PL WOODLAND HILLS CA 913676724 SITUS ADDRESS: 20874 KELVIN PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2149014020 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 19, 2010, at 2:3 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

26

SHERIF, JACOB ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2149014020 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,326.

27


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: KASHANI, DAVOUD Y MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 862020 LOS ANGELES, CA 90086-2020 SITUS ADDRESS: 5247 WINNETKA AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2166006014 ASSESSMENT: $1512

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1112 $1512

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Davoud Kashani appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that he complied upon receiving the first notice as he had in the last 28 years and cleared brush. Appellant stated he never received any second notice of noncompliance and that his 80-year-old parents live in the house and accessed it through the garage and that a red notice for noncompliance was never seen posted on the front door. He questions why this year the palm fronds on the palm tree (which he thinks the tree is about 40 feet high) was never an issue the last 21 years and why the Fire Department never requested him to clear it. He has asked that mailings also be sent to him at his P.O. Box 862020, in Los Angeles, CA 90086. He has also requested consideration for his finances, which he states he is struggling with and not doing that well taking care of his parents etc. He stated since there is no sidewalk, he believes the tree is on his property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on September 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 15, 2009.

28

KASHANI, DAVOUD Y ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2166006014 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Appellant stated he received the First Notice of Compliance, which clearly stated that he was to remove all dead palm fronds. Appellant stated he did not pay attention to the palm tree and went about clearing brush as he has done in the past for the last 21 years and thought he was in compliance and did not know there was a second notice to comply. Fire Department Record does not show notice being returned only return mail for the brochure mailed on May 5, 2009. Clearly Fire Department pictures depict the front door of the home was posted with the Red Second Notice to Comply to give Appellant notice. Appellant did not comply with the notice nor contacted the Inspector to question the notice. The Fire Department may require more than the minimum specific requirements set forth in the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 52.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation, when the Chief determines that conditions exist, which necessitate greater fire protection measures. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibility. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. Fire Department is to update their records to note the supplemental address for the Appellant, which is P.O. Box 862020 Los Angeles, CA, 90086. The total assessment due is $1,512.

29


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: MAY 20, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2166013108 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: BELLA MONTAGNA HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 3 MAILING ADDRESS: 20664 VENTURA BLVD., SUITE # 1400 SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91364 SITUS ADDRESS: 5200-5270 PREMIERE HILLS CIRCLE

WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2166013108 ASSESSMENT: $2726

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1700 $1026 $2726

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Mr. Jason Smith appeared as Appellant on behalf of the Bella Montagna Homeowners Association for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Smith reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Mr. Smith is the Portfolio Manager for Nansco Management (hereinafter “Management”), and represents the Bella Montagna Homeowners Association (hereinafter “HOA”). Appellant stated he was unaware of the red posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to through the mails, and indicated that he only became aware of a problem when a new buyer brought the mail from the previous owner to the management office. Among the still-unopened mail was the Assessment Fee billing notice. Department notices had apparently been sent to an individual foreclosed unit within the complex comprised of 80+ individually-owned condominiums, and Mr. Smith offered that while the HOA was not contesting the clearance work and its charges, he was requesting on their behalf the Administrative fee be waived.

30

BELLA MONTAGNA HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2166013108 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 21, 2009, with a compliance due date of August 10, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 7, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. At the hearing, the Department Inspector stated he researched the parcel records available through the County Assessor Records office, which returned the owner information to which he sent notifications. At the hearing the Appellant clarified that the parcel had been subdivided into 80+ individually owned units, was represented by a homeowners association, who in turn hired Appellant‟s company to be the property manager. Appellant stated he will be the contact person for matters of and concerning the entire property for any future contact and communication, and the Department records were so updated by the Inspector. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been fully completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup, following a neighbor complaint. According to the Department records, notices were sent out to an address reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner. However, the Department records indicate that the “Official Notification” letters mailed on July 24, 2009, and August 13, 2009 were returned by the US Postal service stamped “Return to Sender/ Not Deliverable as Addressed/Unable to Forward.”

31

BELLA MONTAGNA HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2166013108 Page 3 The Department‟s records indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. However, there does appear to be an issue as to whether sufficient notice provided, and to whom. Appellant provided credible testimony and sufficient evidence to support the contention that the HOA and Management Company found out about the hazard and clearance work that needed to be completed only after the fact. As such, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Officer that the HOA‟s offer as communicated through Mr. Smith be accepted for the Cost of Clearance charges, and that the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety as requested. The total assessment due is $0.00.

32


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: GEVORGYANTS, STEPAN MAILING ADDRESS: 5202 MEDINA RD WOODLAND HILLS CA 913641913 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/O 5204 MEDINA ROAD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2168003024 ASSESSMENT: $2026

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1000 $1026 $2026

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 19, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 8, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 16, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

33

GEVORGYANTS, STEPAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2168003024 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $2,026.

34


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184027 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: TRUST HOLDING SERVICE TR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3836 CHATSWORTH CA 913133836 SITUS ADDRESS: DON PIO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2168014041 ASSESSMENT: $1241

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$215 $1026 $1241

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 8, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been waived. The Fire Department records do in fact reflect some inconsistencies in its documentation. Additionally the Appellant does appear to have acted in good faith. Therefore the assessment for the Cost of Clearance and Administrative Fee is waived. The total assessment due is $0.00

35


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: REZKO, JOHN D MAILING ADDRESS: 8424 COLIMA RD WHITTIER CA 906051303 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 86' S/W OF 4980 LLANO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2170001023 ASSESSMENT: $1251

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$225 $1026 $1251

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant states that he should not be hold accountable for the assessment fees as he hired a worker to clear the property, but the worker cleared approximately one-half of the property leaving a large amount of the hazardous and combustible grasses and vegetation. The Appellant was shown the Zima‟s map of his property and at that point realized that he was confused as to the boundaries of his property, and indeed had not cleared the entire property. The Appellants effort and good intent is appreciated, although obtaining his property maps from the city was his responsibility and would have protected him from the assessment. Receiving the maps from the Fire Inspector at the hearing should prevent any future problems. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The department issued an F-1308 notice of noncompliance on May 6, 2009 with a compliance due date of May 22, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

36

REZKO, JOHN D ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2170001023 Page 2 completed on July 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The Fire Inspector was indeed correct in following Fire Department procedure and affording the Appellant due process by sending all notices and posting the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Appellant did indeed make an effort, but remained in noncompliance putting the public in danger, which resulted in the City action and the assessment. The total assessment due is $1,251.

37


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184034 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: BISOGNI, CARLOS A MAILING ADDRESS: 6666 GROSS AVE WEST HILLS CA 91307 SITUS ADDRESS: 4314 CANOGA AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2172029065 ASSESSMENT: $1912

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$800 $1112 $1912

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. The Fire Department record shows that Appellant called April 29, 2009 to state that he filed Bankruptcy in November 2008 and that a Bank now owns the property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on March 23, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 12, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 12, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on December 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against the property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice.

38

BISOGNI, CARLOS A ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2172029065 Page 2 The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. US Bank National Association was recorded as new owner on August 11, 2009. The property was still out of compliance as of the date of clearance by the City Contractor on December 28, 2010. Fire Department immediately updated its records to reflect the March 18, 2010, recordation of title to new owner Margaret Mullen 4314 Canoga Ave., West Hills, CA. 91364 and to send a copy of the Appeal decision along with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet. The total assessment due is $1,912.

39


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184014 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: AKHLAGHFAR, NASSER MAILING ADDRESS: 10390 WILSHIRE BLVD. APT 616 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 SITUS ADDRESS: HESPERIA AVE. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2181027014 ASSESSMENT: $2226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1200 $1026 $2226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated that he did not receive the 1st notice of noncompliance. The Fire Inspectors photographs clearly show the property red-notice posted affording the Appellant proper legal due process. The City Contractors photographs showing the workers clearing were proof that they indeed completed the clearance and abatement of the fire risk DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 12, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against the property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided

40

AKHLAGHFAR, NASSER ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2181027014 Page 2 photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The total assessment due is $2226.

41


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184030 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: HESPERIDES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 4530 GABLE DR ENCINO CA 91316-4354 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF 4530 GABLE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2184016008 ASSESSMENT: $1397

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$285 $1112 $1397

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. The Fire Department record does reflect that the property manager Kael Duprey stated he did not receive notice and requested a phone appeal. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on August 25, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice.

42

HESPERIDES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2184016008 Page 2 The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant with respect to the posted notice. There is record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. It appears that Appellant has on record the address of his neighbor at 4350 Gable Drive. Appellant is to inform the Fire Department whether the Fire Department is to keep the neighbors address as a supplemental address in addition to his current address at 110 4th Ave. Unit 9A, Brooklyn, NY. 11217. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is $1,397.

43


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184038 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 NAME: KOKABI, YAHYA & ZOHREH S MAILING ADDRESS: 20144 WELLS DR WOODLAND HILLS CA 913644728 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/O 21428 GOLONDRINA ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2190012061 ASSESSMENT: $1562

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$450 $1112 $1562

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant Mr. Yahya Kokabi appeared with his son, Mr. Kasra Kokabiu, for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that he had sent his gardener to clean the property as he has done consistently every year for the five to six years that he has owned the property. This year (2009) was the first year that he had a problem with the brush clearance work that had been performed. Appellant continued that he had received a “Cleaned by Owner” Notification, and that there was no further correspondence from the department until in February of this year he received a billing statement for the assessment and Noncompliance fees. Appellant believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 26, 2009. There is a record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner (CBO) Inspection Report on file, which was eventually rescinded.

44

KOKABI, YAHYA & ZOHREH S ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2190012061 Page 2 A Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 7, 2009, but according to the Department Inspector, there is no record that this Rescind Notification was in fact printed and mailed. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on December 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been fully completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. According to the Inspector, he believed that given the six months that had elapsed between the initial inspection and the subsequent work order, the likelihood was great that this was a re-growth of vegetation. According to the Department records, the Cleaned-By-Owner notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address, but the Department records do not indicate that the rescind F-1307CBO Notice was printed and mailed. Therefore, there does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and sufficient notice provided. Appellant has been able to provide credible testimony and sufficient documentation to lend credence to his contention that the only notification that he received from the Department was the Cleaned-By-Owner notice, and that he did not receive any further communication from the Department until the Assessment Fee and Noncompliance Fee statements were received in 2010. Department records also do not show any rescind or non-compliance notices being printed mailed and received to the Appellant, and therefore no presumption of receipt by him. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since some benefit was conferred - the clearance work on the property – that the Appellant be responsible for just half of those charges, and that additionally the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety as well. The total assessment due is $225.

45


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183009 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: STEELE, COREY L MAILING ADDRESS: 3975 WESLIN AVE SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 SITUS ADDRESS: 3975 WESLIN AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2272025017 ASSESSMENT: $1616

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$590 $1026 $1616

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 18, 2010, at 1:45 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 22, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 18, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 18, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

46

STEELE, COREY L ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2272025017 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1616.

47


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE

HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: SHAHRAM GHALILI MAILING ADDRESS: 11540 DONA EVITA DR. STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 200' S/OF 3646-50 KNOBHILL DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274010005 ASSESSMENT: $1371

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$345 $1026 $1371

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated that he bought property May 9, 2009 but did not receive the first notice; however, the Fire Department corrected the address and resent the notice on May 27, 2009. A second notice of noncompliance was issued and posted on July 10, 2009, which was 64 days after the first notice was sent the Appellant at his current and correct address. He also stated he did not visit the property and so missed the Red Re-instatement notice. Since he is responsible to visit the property he was legally noticed. The Fire Department was correct to intervene and abate the serious hazard at this site, as it was adjacent to a school with high risk to the students and the community. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 10, 2009. Order was prepared and the property was posted on July 10, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

48

SHAHRAM GHALILI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274010005 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions near the school at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1,371.

49


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174045 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: SITO WEST LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 6210 WILSHIRE BLVD. #208 LOS ANGELES CA 90048 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W OF 3651 BEVERLY RIDGE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274016023 ASSESSMENT: $1126

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$100 $1026 $1126

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 12, 2010, at 10:15 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 20, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 22, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 14, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 14, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

50

SITO WEST LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274016023 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do indicate that the first notices were returned from both the property and supplemental addresses, and then the notices were mailed again. On the second attempt no mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,126.

51


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174024 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: TYREMAN INT./CARLO BONDANELLI MAILING ADDRESS: 6380 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1110 LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACROSS FROM 3655 OAKFIELD DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274016024 ASSESSMENT: $1516

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$490 $1026 $1516

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Carlo Bondanelli appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment hearing. Mr. Bondanelli acts as manager for the Tyreman International Inc., owner of record. Mr. Bondanelli stated that he did not receive the First Notice of Noncompliance. He states when he received the Second Notice of Noncompliance on June 24, 2009, he immediately contacted the Department at (818) 374-1111 asking for a new date of compliance. He was advised to leave a message for the Inspector via telephone, which he states he did, however no response was received as to a new deadline for the brush clearance. He then emailed the Department on July 7, 2009. Exhibit A is in the file, which is a copy of the email sent by Mr. Bondanelli to [email protected]. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 20, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 20, 2009. The property was bid on July 7, 2009 and subsequently contracted to a City Contractor. The City Contractor completed the work on July 20, 2009.

mailto:[email protected]

52

TYREMAN INT./CARLO BONDANELLI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274016024 Page 2 Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. Fire Department records shows no owner address or supplemental address was added on June 20, 2009. Appellant was not properly served and was not provided due process with respect to the First Notice of Noncompliance. Department notes confirm Carlo Bondanelli received a phone call on June 24, 2009, after receipt of the Second Notice of Noncompliance. Fire Inspector stated that the Administrative fee was waived per Fire Captain and that it was supposed to be sent to accounting for correction. Both Parties agreed that the administrative fee should be waived and Appellant has agreed to pay the Brush Clearance fee. The total assessment due is $490.

53


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174046 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: EL VALLE DE LAS DELICIAS MAILING ADDRESS: 10501 LOS SERRANOS DR. WHITTIER CA 906011751 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N OF 3297 COY DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274022009 ASSESSMENT: $1151

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1026 $1151

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant submitted an in-writing appeal challenging the Brush Clearance Assessment on May 21, 2009. In this signed and dated handwritten letter Appellant stated that he has owned the lot for a few years, and had sent in his landscaper on a couple of occasions to clean the brushes, shrubs, and trees. Appellant stated that he subsequently discovered that his landscaper had cleared the wrong lots. Appellant then stated that now he will accompany the landscaper on-site to ensure there would not be a repetition of the errors. Appellant added that the Department had added to the confusion by sending notices to differing addresses. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 15, 2009, with a compliance due date of August 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 17, 2009.

54

EL VALLE DE LAS DELICIAS ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274022009 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,151.

55


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: FARIBORZ ATLASSI MAILING ADDRESS: 15515 W. SUNSET BLVD PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N OF 3636 CAMINO ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274025033 ASSESSMENT: $1301

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$275 $1026 $1301

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Fariborz Atlassi appeared with his business partner, Homer Namjo in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that he never had notice since he purchased the property from the County Tax Assessor at auction on August 17, 2009, and that title recorded on October 13, 2009, as the County delays recording. Appellant asked for a waiver on the administrative fees because he did not have notice or an opportunity to comply and offered to pay the Cost of Clearance to the Fire Department. Appellant further stated that he owns over 60 parcels, is an engineer and very familiar with his brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant stated that had he known he would have cleared it evidenced by the fact that he takes care of all his properties using Visquin (a plastic tarp) to cover his properties in an effort to comply with brush clearance. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 14, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 14, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

56

FARIBORZ ATLASSI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274025033 Page 2 Completed on August 7, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the brush Clearance invoice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. There is no dispute as to the LAFD record showing that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard after the property remained out of compliance with the Brush Clearance Ordinance. LAFD Inspector stated that had the Appellant paid $70.20 for a 9A report he would have seen that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear on October 1, 2001, October 20, 2005, September 25, 2008, and June 17, 2009. Documentation regarding the 9A report, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential (includes vacant real property located in a zone wherein dwelling units or guest rooms are legally permitted) property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow. Appellant is a sophisticated Buyer of vacant land and familiar with the disclosures as they relate to tax sale auctions from the County Tax Assessor. Appellant stated he investigated his purchase of the property and certainly never received notice of any noncompliance and Seller failed to disclose. Appellant purchased the property through the County Tax Assessor at auction on August 17, 2009. The property was posted with the Second Notice of Noncompliance through the month of July 2009 and the month of August 2009, brush clearance was completed 10 days prior to Appellants successful bid at auction. Pursuant to Section 3712 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Weed Abatement liens, public liens are not removed by a tax sale, the deed conveys title to the purchaser free of all encumbrances of any kind existing before the sale, EXCEPT: any lien for installments of taxes and special assessments, which installments will become payable upon the secured roll after the time of sale. The Cost of Clearance and the Administrative Fee clearly become a special assessment against the parcel upon completion of the City Contractors work on the parcel as stated in Los Angeles Municipal Code SEC. 57.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation. The total assessment due is $1,301.

57


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: FARIBORZ ATLASSI MAILING ADDRESS: 15515 W. SUNSET BLVD PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 326' N/OF 3636 CMNO DE LA CUMBRE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274025034 ASSESSMENT: $1301

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$275 $1026 $1301

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Fariborz Atlassi appeared with his business partner, Homer Namjo in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that he never had notice since he purchased the property from the County Tax Assessor at auction on August 17, 2009, and that title recorded on October 13, 2009, as the County delays recording. Appellant asked for a waiver on the administrative fees because he did not have notice or an opportunity to comply and offered to pay the Cost of Clearance to the Fire Department. Appellant further stated that he owns over 60 parcels, is an engineer and very familiar with his brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant stated that had he known he would have cleared it evidenced by the fact that he takes care of all his properties using Visquin (a plastic tarp) to cover his properties in an effort to comply with brush clearance. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 14, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 14, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

58

FARIBORZ ATLASSI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2274025034 Page 2 Completed on August 7, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the brush Clearance invoice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. There is no dispute as to the LAFD record showing that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard after the property remained out of compliance with the Brush Clearance Ordinance. LAFD Inspector stated that had the Appellant paid $70.20 for a 9A report he would have seen that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear on October 1, 2001, October 20, 2005, September 25, 2008, and June 17, 2009. Documentation regarding the 9A report, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential (includes vacant real property located in a zone wherein dwelling units or guest rooms are legally permitted) property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow. Appellant is a sophisticated Buyer of vacant land. Appellant stated he investigated his purchase of the property and certainly never received notice of any noncompliance and Seller failed to disclose. Appellant purchased the property through the County Tax Assessor at auction on August 17, 2009. The property was posted with the Second Notice of Noncompliance through the month of July 2009 and the month of August 2009, brush clearance was completed 10 days prior to Appellants successful bid at auction. Pursuant to Section 3712 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Weed Abatement liens, public liens are not removed by a tax sale, the deed conveys title to the purchaser free of all encumbrances of any kind existing before the sale, EXCEPT: any lien for installments of taxes and special assessments, which installments will become payable upon the secured roll after the time of sale. The Cost of Clearance and the Administrative Fee clearly become a special assessment against the parcel upon completion of the City Contractors work on the parcel as stated in Los Angeles Municipal Code SEC. 57.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation. The total assessment due is $1,301.

59


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174034 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: WOLCOTT, DOROTHY F TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 5339 RENIER AVE LOS ANGELES CA 900561020 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/O 3525 BEVERLY GLEN BOULEVARD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2275026006 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Upon asked to be seated the Appellant immediately took an argumentative and belligerent attitude toward the Inspector and the Hearing Officer. He did not contest the fact that he received all legal notices both mailed and posted; He complained that he had called someone to clear the property, but the worker quit. He complained about the Inspector that the Inspector was prejudiced and citing him and not any of his neighbors. He then proceeded to call the Inspector a Nazi. The Inspector showed him Fire Department photos showing that the property was in a very serious and hazardous condition and desperately in need of clearing. The Appellant then began calling the Fire Department, Inspector and Hearing Officer Fascists and Nazis. The hearing Officer determined she had sufficient evidence and closed the hearing and excused the Appellant. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 16, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 23, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 23, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

60

WOLCOTT, DOROTHY F TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2275026006 Page 2 completed on October 23, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance invoice. The Fire Department record shows that the Appellant was afforded due process; the record also reflects that the Fire Inspector sent and posted all legal notices as required as stated above. The total assessment due is $1,426.

61


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: AHN, KATHERINE K MAILING ADDRESS: 15360 DEL GADO DR. SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403-4332 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 15306 DEL GADO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2281022007 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Included in the file is a written letter (no date) received by the Fire Department in early February 2010 wherein Appellant states that they believe the fields extending beyond the fence (the back field) are not their responsibility. The communication log in the Fire Department record reflects a statement by Appellant that she never received the First or Second Notice of Noncompliance although she stated she did see the red posted notice on the property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 19, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 19, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

62

AHN, KATHERINE K ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2281022007 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. The total assessment due is $1,326.

63


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: FREEMAN, CARYN & FREEMAN, STEVEN MAILING ADDRESS: 4265 NOELINE AVE ENCINO CA 914363329 SITUS ADDRESS: 4265 NOELINE AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2284019008 ASSESSMENT: $1216

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$190 $1026 $1216

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant stated that together with her husband they purchased the property through a bank sale, and escrow closed on September 29, 2009. Appellant stated that when the assessment bill was received, she contacted the title insurance company and was informed that the “Form 9A” report generated at the time of escrow showed all outstanding liens had been cleared. Appellant added that she believed that the assessment was the responsibility of the prior owner, and that this property stood vacant for two and a half years before their purchase. Mail delivered to the previous property owner/builder she believed had been thrown away by the bank that owned the property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 20, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307

64

FREEMAN, CARYN & FREEMAN, STEVEN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2284019008 Page 2 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 24, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 24, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department‟s records the property was properly physically posted with signs. A red tag notice was physically posted, and in addition Official Notices were mailed the owner of record as it appears in official records obtained from the County Assessor‟s Office. The Department records do not indicate any “Official Notification” letters being returned by the US Postal Service. It appears the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. The Form 9A Report that Appellant was informed had been generated during the sale process did reflect the lien the Department recorded prior to the sale, not subsequent to it. The 9A Report is contained in the package and shows the Fire Notice lien was recorded on July 24, 2009, three months prior to escrow closing on September 29, 2009. After she received the assessment this year, Appellant stated that she called the escrow and title company and they both informed her the “Form 9A” report showed all liens were “Cleared.” This information apparently was factually inaccurate. Liens are recorded against the property, not the individual owner, and would so attach until paid in full from funds placed into escrow when the property sells. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the brush clearance work that was done on the property – the Appellant should be responsible for the Cost of Clearance, and additionally for the Administrative Fee. Appellant may in turn investigate additional remedies against those companies for the Fire Department lien that was not caught and cured through escrow. The total assessment due is $1216.

65


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: NAZARI, AHMAD & AZITA H MAILING ADDRESS: 3700 HARLENE DR ENCINO CA 91436-3938 SITUS ADDRESS: 3700 HARLENE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2286022020 ASSESSMENT: $2406

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1380 $1026 $2406

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellants, Ahmad Nazari and Azita Nazari appeared for the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that prior to the First Notice he already personally cleared the property of brush and that after receiving the second notice on Noncompliance he contacted the Inspector to determine exactly what needed to be cleared. Appellant presented Exhibit A, a bill in the amount of $1100.00 paid to his gardener Javier (dated June 22, 2009 for work completed June 26, 2009) after speaking with the Inspector, and contracting Javier to again clean the entire hill and to cut all the dried trees and pickup all the trash. Appellant stated that he believed he was in compliance and disputes the fees imposed. Appellant further stated that he is 76 years old, is on a fixed income (receiving a modest pension and social security), has an 11 year old son and is concerned about his finances since he has lost a large portion of the value of his pension due to the losses in the stock market. Appellant further demonstrated these fees are causing him emotional distress. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 21, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 21, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 12, 2009.

66

NAZARI, AHMAD & AZITA H ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2286022020 Page 2 Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The noncompliance fee of $300 is a separate written appeal and this decision does not include that appeal. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Property inspection is the ongoing responsibility of the property owner, which Appellant understands, and Appellant has demonstrated a good faith attempt to fulfill his brush clearance responsibilities, prior to and after receipt of any noncompliance notices from the Fire Department. The Fire Department record does show Appellant understands that if vegetation re-growth occurs an owner may be required to perform additional brush clearance. Appellant has been in communication with the Inspector trying to understand the brush that needed to be cleared in order to be in compliance and there still appears to be confusion for the Appellant regarding the green vegetation that may need to be cleared this year. Appellant presented Exhibit A, dated June 22, 2009, which is a receipt for the amounts paid to his gardener ($1100.00) for brush clearance. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities in the future. The Inspector has agreed to meet with Appellant at the property; the first or second week of June 2010; to identify what brush needs to be cleared. Appellant has demonstrated some financial hardship. The total assessment due is $1,896.

67


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184020 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: HANSON, ROGER S MAILING ADDRESS: 1616 N. MOUNTAINVIEW PL FULLERTON CA 928311226 SITUS ADDRESS: 17271 OAK VIEW DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2289010003 ASSESSMENT: $2826

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1800 $1026 $2826

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing and did not contest the fact that all notices were sent to his proper address and none were returned to the Fire Department. He stated that he sent some on to the property from Orange County and later sent some people from his church that found a man standing by the landlocked property who told them there was nothing to be done. He also reported that someone moved the mailbox to said property, but that is irrelevant as all notices are sent to his current and proper address in Orange County. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 16, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 24, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 24, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

68

HANSON, ROGER S ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2289010003 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department correctly intervened and followed all correct procedures to protect the property and surrounding community. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. The record further shows the all notices were legally sent and posted as required. The total assessment due is $2826.

69


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: ESHAGHIAN, MASSOUD J & GEORGE M E MAILING ADDRESS: 2765 ELLISON DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 902101207 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 4620 BALBOA AVE. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2289016033 ASSESSMENT: $1626

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$600 $1026 $1626

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, the Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he paid a gardener on November 30, 2008 $700.00 to complete clearance work and dump the trash, and provided in addition a Topography Survey map that was completed on September 11, 2006. Appellant stated that there had been encroachment onto his property by a neighbor. Appellant stated that he has a “flagpole” shaped property, with a 300-foot driveway. Appellant said that his property‟s boundary lines had been historically difficult to discern, and asked whether the city contractors when they were on the property to clear the brush had surveyor or assessor maps.

70

ESHAGHIAN, MASSOUD J & GEORGE M E ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2289016033 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 16, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 9, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 24, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 24, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Additionally Appellant had cleared his property in November of 2008, and the city contractors had not gone out until September 9, 2009, after some eleven months had elapsed, and re-growth had occurred. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,626.

71


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: ROTHSTEIN, GLEN A MAILING ADDRESS: 17033 COTTER PL ENCINO CA 914363829 SITUS ADDRESS: 17033 COTTER PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2292008011 ASSESSMENT: $1512

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1112 $1512

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Glen Rothstein appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant stated that he complied and that he followed the instructions of the Inspector. Appellant also stated that he thought that maybe the owners above his property dumped debris over their wall onto his property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice.

72

ROTHSTEIN, GLEN A ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2292008011 Page 2 The Fire Inspector stated that the Appellant did a good job in clearing his property and that it was Inspector error with respect to instructions on the notice which requested Appellant to clear to the top of his hill to the chain link fence and that Appellant complied. The total assessment due is $400.

73


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009184021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: LIPKIN, ARTUR & INNA MAILING ADDRESS: 4655 NATICK AVE. #4 SHERMAN OAKS CA 914032768 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W OF 17039 COTTER PL. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2292008038 ASSESSMENT: $1406

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$380 $1026 $1406

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Ms. Inna Lipkin (Appellant) appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant stated that together with her husband that she purchased the vacant lot at an auction that turned out to be far smaller that they originally thought, and unsuitable for building. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that she believed that the clean-up work they had performed and paid $300.00 for was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 30, 2009.

74

LIPKIN, ARTUR & INNA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2292008038 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The Inspector noted that primary violation was the tree branches that appeared to have been cut and dumped onto this small property, and that the bulk of the violations appeared to be on the adjoining property. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. However, regarding due process, there does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and sufficient notice provided, given the fact that the mailed official notifications were returned to the Department. The Appellant also noted upon review of the „During” photographs taken by the contractor that clean-up work was being performed past the block retaining wall at the end of the property. The Inspector agreed that this area past the wall had been erroneously included as part of the clean up ordered on the Contractor Worksheet, belonged to the neighbor, and that clearance occurred past the property line. As such, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the clearance work on the property – that the Appellant be responsible for those charges, but since the Inspector was in agreement that an area outside of Appellant‟s property had been included in this clean-up cost, it is recommended that the $380.00 charge be halved in the interest of fairness to $190.00. Furthermore, it is also recommended that the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. The total assessment due is $190.

75


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: STOMEL, JOSHUA A MAILING ADDRESS: 17111 ESCALON DR ENCINO CA 91436-4029 SITUS ADDRESS: 17111 ESCALON DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2292020027 ASSESSMENT: $1412

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1112 $1412

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 28, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 28, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice.

76

STOMEL, JOSHUA A ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2292020027 Page 2 The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. The total assessment due is $1,412.

77


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: HORIZON, ARASH MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 373 BEVERLY HILLS CA 902130373 SITUS ADDRESS: 3492 CLAIRTON PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2293008027 ASSESSMENT: $3562

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$2450 $1112 $3562

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Arash Horizon appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant is upset with the work completed by the City Contractors and stated that no one supervised their work and caused him tension with the neighbors due to the amount of debris and dead vegetation left by the City Contractors for over a week in the street and on the sidewalk near his neighbor‟s property. Appellant also stated that the City Contractors destroyed vegetation on his property creating several public hazards and potential mudslide. Appellant stated that he tried to comply upon receiving the second notice to clear brush and must have overlooked the first notice since the home was vacant. Appellant stated that the area he was to clear is not visible from his property, it is a steep cliff and that he needed to go through the neighboring property below to clear and when he did so it was too late as the City Contractors were already there working on the property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 24, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 2, 2009.

78

HORIZON, ARASH ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2293008027 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Inspector stated that upon his reinspection there was no visible brush that looked like it was freshly cut. Inspector Contractor Worksheet does not notate whether some work by owner or that no work was done by owner. Inspector stated he did receive a phone call from a lady whom Appellant clarified was his real estate broker who helped him to clear the property upon receiving notice. It appears Appellant tried to make a good faith attempt to comply though was unclear as to the amount and location of brush requested by the Inspector to be removed. Appellant is now clear as to his responsibility after review of the Fire Department photographs of the brush removed. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. The total assessment due is $3,562.

79


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: ESPER, EMAD & JAMAL B MAILING ADDRESS: 5270 LAUREL CYN BLVD. VALLEY VILLAGE CA 916072710 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L BEHIND 11352 VENTURA BL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2378021005 ASSESSMENT: $1256

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$230 $1026 $1256

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant stated that he received neither the red posted notice, nor the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails, and said that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he has consistently utilized the services of the same gardener for years, and the work this gardener has performed has always allowed his property to be found in compliance, except for this year 2009. Appellant provided two photographs illustrating the condition of his property, and stated that clearing the hillside has never been required of him in all the years that he has owned the property in question.

80

ESPER, EMAD & JAMAL B ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2378021005 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 4, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 24, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant stated that he had been anticipatory in clearing the property prior to the first inspection taking place; however the undated photographs offered as evidence do seem to be reflective of the brush clearance completed after the contract work had been performed. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,256.

81


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: ESPER, EMAD & JAMAL B MAILING ADDRESS: 5270 LAUREL CYN BLVD. VALLEY VILLAGE CA 916072710 SITUS ADDRESS: 11354 VENTURA BLVD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2378021006 ASSESSMENT: $1256

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$230 $1026 $1256

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant stated that he received neither the red posted notice, nor the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails, and said that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he has consistently utilized the services of the same gardener for years, and the work this gardener has performed has always allowed his property to be found in compliance, except for this year 2009. Appellant provided two photographs illustrating the condition of his property, and stated that clearing the hillside has never been required of him in all the years that he has owned the property in question.

82

ESPER, EMAD & JAMAL B ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2378021006 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 4, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 24, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant stated that he had been anticipatory in clearing the property prior to the first inspection taking place; however the undated photographs offered as evidence do seem to be reflective of the brush clearance completed after the contract work had already been performed. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,256.

83


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: MAY 20, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173029 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: WALIA, JUMUH MAILING ADDRESS: 3279 LAUREL CANYON BLVD

STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 SITUS ADDRESS: 3271 NO. LAUREL CANYON BLVD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2381004005 ASSESSMENT: $1421

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$395 $1026 $1421

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant stated that due to a death in the family he traveled out of the country in March 2009, returning only in August 2009. Upon his return, he attended to the brush clearance, hiring a crew to do the work. He said his work crew was surprised by the city contractor arriving on the same day to do cleanup work that he said he was already attending to. The city contractor then returned to the property and completed the work, but the Appellant argued his team that he paid $200.00 to have already completed the work.

84

WALIA, JUMUH ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2381004005 Page 2 Appellant pleaded for a reduction in the assessment given the state of the economy. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 21, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 10, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had contracted for and had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported by any of the proffered documentation submitted as evidence. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,421.

85


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183037 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: HIGNITE,WILLIAM C CO TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 23433 HATTERAS ST WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367-3021 SITUS ADDRESS: 3901 AVENIDA DEL SOL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2384009026 ASSESSMENT: $1697

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$585 $1112 $1697

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 10, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 21, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 21, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 20, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

86

HIGNITE,WILLIAM C CO TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2384009026 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice; The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard, and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1697.00.

87


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: TURNER, ORVILLE & SALLAM, ALIYAH MAILING ADDRESS: 1107 FAIR OAKS # 143 S. PASADENA, CA 91030 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACROSS FROM 3710 ALTA MESA PL. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2384015028 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 18, 2010, at 1:45 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 13, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 13, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 31, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department‟s records the property was properly physically posted with signs. A red tag notice was physically posted, and in addition official

88

TURNER, ORVILLE & SALLAM, ALIYAH ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2384015028 Page 2 Notices were mailed the owner of record as it appears in official records obtained from the County Assessor‟s Office. The Department records do not indicate any “Official Notification” letters being returned by the US Postal Service. It appears the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. However, there exists an issue as to whether this Appellant was afforded due process, given the fact that as the subsequent purchaser there is no evidence that the Appellant saw the posted sign, or received the mailed notifications. The parcel is a vacant lot and additionally, all notices were sent to the previous owner who apparently ignored them. Additionally, the Form 9A Report that would show liens against the property did not reflect this Assessment as this lien could only have been recorded subsequent to the land sale, not prior to it. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the brush clearance work that was done on the property – the Appellant should be responsible for only the Cost of Clearance, and that the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. The total assessment due is $300.

89


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 19, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183037 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: MEYLIKER, VLADIMIR MAILING ADDRESS: 300 N. LAKE AVE SAE 750 PASADENA CA 911014109 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L APPROX 190' N/O 3818 ALTA MESA DR. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2384017009 ASSESSMENT: $1512

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1112 $1512

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that in fact he believed that the clean-up work that had been undertaken by the department was entirely on the undeveloped tract of land adjoining his property. In fact the Appellant drew particular note that his property line extended just five feet from one of the retaining walls. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 10, 2009, with a compliance due date of July 30, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307

90

MEYLIKER, VLADIMIR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2384017009 Page 2 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 21, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 21, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 20, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. Given the Appellant‟s contention that the incorrect property had been cleaned, the Department Inspector traveled to the property during the lunch hour and returned with not only a fresh set of photographs, but new Zimas maps and measured dimensions, to make abundantly certain of the accuracy of the Appellant‟s contentions. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Additionally, the new set of photographs taken by the Department Inspector on May 21, 2010, revealed that significant landscaping and building work had been completed during the intervening months. The landscaping that the Appellant had done showed that his property line encompassed an area which extended further than his original contention - to one that now clearly included that area that the City contractor had cleared – albeit with the presumption that the Appellant was unlikely to have graded and planted an area on his neighbor‟s property. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,512.

91


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: DE LA NUEZ, GEORGE MAILING ADDRESS: 28025 DOROTHY DR. #100 AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 SITUS ADDRESS: 3728 DIXIE CANYON AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2385003041 ASSESSMENT: $1161

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$135 $1026 $1161

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. The Fire Department record documents a conversation between Appellant and the Inspector wherein Appellant stated he was receiving brush clearance estimates and when City Contractor came to complete the work on July 31, 2010 he contacted the Inspector to tell him he was having the brush removed on August 1, 2009. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 17, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 11, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

92

DE LA NUEZ, GEORGE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2385003041 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant with respect to the posted notice. There is a record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. On July 17, 2009 the Inspector clearly informed Appellant he had until July 30, 2009 to complete his brush clearing responsibilities. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. The total assessment due is $1,161.

93


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174027 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: BO LEE MACDONALD TR MAILING ADDRESS: 11340 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 148 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NO OF 3625 POTOSI AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2385019042 ASSESSMENT: $1346

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$320 $1026 $1346

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Allan Bess and Hamlet Bandari, Realtors with Rodeo Realty attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing representing the Appellant. Mr. Bess stated that he and the Appellant both visited the property in June 2009, and that the Brush was cleared. Appellant was available via telephone (310-597-0236) which was placed on speaker for the hearing and stated that she did not receive the Second Notice of Noncompliance. She further stated that she was under the impression that she was in compliance since she paid to have the brush cleared, notifying the Fire Department that a few day extension was needed due to the rains, and that she inspected the property herself, noting that brush was cleared. She stated her shock at receiving the Bill for Clearing from her Tenant, which resides at 116 Outrigger Mall, Marina Del Rey, and CA 90292. Representatives for the Appellant sought clarification and questioned what exactly needed to be in compliance since they may be placing this parcel on the market for sale in the near future. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 26, 2009.

94

BO LEE MACDONALD TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2385003042 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 26, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. Fire Department records reflect that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. City Contractor notes no work completed by the owner. Owner did not receive a Form F-1307 Cleaned by Owner Inspection Report, which would serve as proof of work completion. It is further recommended that Appellant take appropriate action to notify the County Assessor of her proper mailing address. Appellant is recommended to inform her Realtors that the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 requires that the seller of residential property provide and RPR, Residential Property Report, RPR, or Form 9A, also known as a 9A Report to the new buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow in connection therewith. Appellant is advised to provide the new Buyer with the current LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder publication, which includes an independent contractors list provided as a convenience only to property owners. The total assessment due is $1,346.

95


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174027 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: KONIALIAN, JIRAIR MAILING ADDRESS: 18546 ROSCOE BLVD STE# 220 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 3663 POTOSI AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2385019048 ASSESSMENT: $1341

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$315 $1026 $1341

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 26, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 26, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

96

KONIALIAN, JIRAIR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2385019048 Page 2 The record further reflects that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The Fire Department record and the City Contractor did note that some work was done on the West end of the parcel; however, parcel (APN 2385-019-048) was still out of compliance. It is also noted that the Fire Department re-inspection of another parcel (APN 2385-019-047) owned by Appellant was in compliance with Los Angeles Municipal Code 57.21.07 on June 25, 2009. The total assessment due is $1,341.

97


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: SUGERMAN, ANDREW TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 3576 DIXIE CANYON AVE. SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423-4822 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 3576 DIXIE CANYON ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2386028017 ASSESSMENT: $1186

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$160 $1026 $1186

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Andrew Sugerman appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant states that since 1985 he has always cleared his property and never had to clear this much. Appellant stated that on April 29, 2009, his gardener of 23 years, Hector, completed the work for him, as he has done in the past, and he believed he was in compliance. Appellant stated that over the years anytime he received a notice to clear brush from the Fire Department he immediately complied. Appellant stated that one month ago he paid the $300 noncompliance fee billed to him. Appellant further stated that when he received the second notice he contacted the Inspector that explained to him the entire property needed to be cleared. Appellant stated he contracted Hector again to clear brush down the hill, more than he ever cleared before, and that the work was done. Appellant feels it is punitive to impose administrative fees upon him because he was not negligent and tried his best to comply. Appellant further stated that the fees would financially be burdensome to him. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 17, 2009.

98

SUGERMAN, ANDREW TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2386028017 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 11, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in a reduced amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. On June 10, 2009 Inspector clearly explained in detail to Appellant what needed to be done to be in compliance and that the entire property needed to be cleared. On July 31, 2009 Inspector spoke to Appellant again clarifying that the entire parcel needed to be cleared and discussed the neighboring parcel 2386-028-023 which had received a notice. Inspector documented that Appellant did state he cleared about 50 feet, however Inspector told Appellant he needed to clear the entire lot and Appellant stated he wanted to appeal the amount of brush that needed to be cleared. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. The Fire Department may require more than the minimum specific requirements set forth in the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 52.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation, when the Chief determines that conditions exist, which necessitate greater fire protection measures. Appellant presented some financial hardship. The total assessment due is $886.

99


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173006 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: EUN SUG CHA TR MAILING ADDRESS: 12039 EDDLESTON DR PORTER RANCH CA 91326 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ADJOINING WILDWOOD FIRE ROAD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2401027031 ASSESSMENT: $3326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$2300 $1026 $3326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. The Appellant stated that he purchased the property post-auction, and that any issues regarding brush clearance and abatement were the responsibility of the previous owner. The Appellant stated that he had tried to reach the previous owner, but that according to his research she was deceased. Appellant believed that the purchase of the property at a post-auction sale in effect extinguished any liability that he had for the property for any weed abatement and clearance issues and charges. Appellant stated that his responsibility would only begin after his property purchase, not before. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on May 25, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on May 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

100

EUN SUG CHA TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2401027031 Page 2 completed on July 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The Department also produced a “9A” Report that showed that there had been a history on non-compliance, where the city had cleared the brush over a number of years, including the 2009-year in question. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the prior property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Even though the Appellant had purchased the property on November 18, 2009 at a sale or auction, County Tax documents reflect that all purchasers take the properties sold “As Is,” and are warned that while some encumbrances are extinguished, weed abatement levies and fees are not removable without payment via a tax sale. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $3,326.

101


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 20, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173036 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: EIDIAN, VAZGEN MAILING ADDRESS: 8200 GLENCREST DR. SUN VALLEY CA 913523505 SITUS ADDRESS: 8200 GLENCREST DR 8200 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403009064 ASSESSMENT: $1612

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1112 $1612

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he had in fact hired a gardener to complete clearance work on his own on the property, and that person he hired had to stop due to the rains. After the rains had subsided, Appellant stated that he wanted to resume clearance, but at that stage the Department had hired the contractor and completed the cleanup. Appellant provided a handwritten invoice dated October 9, 2009 for cleanup work he said was not completed properly, charging the City contractor with failure to pick up all of the brush and weeds that had been cleared. Appellant produced two sets of photographs, one set which he stated were taken before the City contractor showed up, and the other sometime after.

102

EIDIAN, VAZGEN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403009064 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 5, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. According to Department records, the Appellant called and spoke to the Department Inspector, who mailed out the first Zimas Intranet map on July 16, 2009. In September 2009 the Department Inspector on September 14, 2009, mailed out the second Zimas Intranet map to the Appellant demarcating the area where clearance work still needed to be completed. Additionally the Department Inspector had noted that the Appellant‟s truck filled with weed and brush had been photographed by the city contractor prior to their cleanup, countering Appellant‟s contention that he had filled the truck with the debris after the city contractors had left. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. While the Appellant is acknowledged to have undertaken clearance work, the Department records indicate that this work was only approximately half of the required area,

103

EIDIAN, VAZGEN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403009064 Page 3 Necessitating contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s photographs of what he claimed his contractor did match in large part the conditions photographed by the city contractor after cleanup, and by the Department‟s submitted photographs. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,612.

104



HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173020 COUNCIL ISTRICT: 6 NAME: PORTNER, MICHAEL G MAILING ADDRESS: 79 PATRICIAN WAY NO. 1A PASADENA CA 911051046 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LOT ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403014002 ASSESSMENT: $2226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1200 $1026 $2226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared and stated that he did receive the notice of violation. He went to the said property and did some clearance. His proof was many enlarged pictures of the property clearly showing tall grasses and brush in violation. The violation completion date was June 1, 2009. Appellant put into evidence a letter he sent to the Fire Department on August 4, 2009, which was clearly after the fact and cannot be considered. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

105

PORTNER, MICHAEL G ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403014002 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that all notices were sent and that no mail was retuned. The record further shows that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a notice to abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which clearly depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the City clearance. The total assessment due is $2,226.

106


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173024 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: DARBINYAN, KARMEN MAILING ADDRESS: 10060 OLIVIA TERRACE SUNLAND CA 910403322 SITUS ADDRESS: OLIVIA TER ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403020030 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 11, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

107

DARBINYAN, KARMEN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2403020030 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,326.

108


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: MIRZAYAN, ANAHID TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 1022 WOLVERTON DR GLENDALE CA 912071120 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NORTH OF 8756 VINE VALLEY DRIVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2404005002 ASSESSMENT: $3826

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$2800 $1026 $3826

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant elected to contest the Brush Clearance Assessment in writing. In a letter, signed and dated May 21, 2010, Mr. Ara Mirzayan (Appellant) wrote that he was appealing the imposition of the assessment. Appellant stated that he believed that the clean-up work his landscaper had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant provided Invoice # 328830 dated June 25, 2009, for “clean up” in the amount of $300.00. Appellant indicated that he used the same landscaper for the past five years that the landscaper is very familiar with the requirements of brush clearance. Appellant also submitted an Annual Property Tax Information Statement for 2009 indicating a payment of $1,976.00 for Brush Removal. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 11, 2009.

109

MIRZAYAN, ANAHID TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2404005002 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had contracted for and had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported by the documentation in the case file. According to the Contractor Worksheet, there had been no work done by owner, and the photographs indicate it. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $3,826.

110


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009173022 COUNCIL DISTRICT:6 NAME: DAVIS, MIKE MAILING ADDRESS: 4540 SAN BLAS AVE WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NORTH OF 8470 OUTLAND VIEW ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2404016025 ASSESSMENT: $1206

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$180 $1026 $1206

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing on May 11, 2010, therefore there was no evidence in opposition presented. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the appellant, who failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire inspector posted the property with a notice to abate a Public nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, as evidence, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1206.

111


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179018 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: CHERNYAVSKY, IGOR MAILING ADDRESS: 3858 MULTIVIEW DR. LOS ANGELES CA 900681228 SITUS ADDRESS: 3858 MULTIVIEW DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2425009010 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 14, 2010, at 9:30 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 4, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 4, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 8, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

112

CHERNYAVSKY, IGOR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2425009010 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,176.

113


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172008 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: AZAT, ISSA V MAILING ADDRESS: 1708 RAMONA AVE SOUTH PASADENA CA 910304426 SITUS ADDRESS: ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2531030026 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 10, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 15, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

114

AZAT, ISSA V ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2531030026 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,226.

115


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: GOODE, THERESA R MAILING ADDRESS: 10814 DEHAVEN AVE PACOIMA CA 913312009 SITUS ADDRESS: 10814 DE HAVEN AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2536026025 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 10, 2010, at 9:30 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 16, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

116

GOODE, THERESA R ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2536026025 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,226.

117


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173023 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: SHADOW HILLS ESTATES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 11043 OLINDA ST SUN VALLEY CA 91352 SITUS ADDRESS: STALLION RANCH RD 10622 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542007008 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellants appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance assessment Hearing. They reported that they were owners among others with the builder for some years. They testified, however they became responsible for the property on August 15, 2008. They stated they called into the Fire Department after the May 11, 2009, first inspection and requesting more time. The Re-inspection notice was not posted until July 11, 2009, some 60 days later and contractor order was not issued until July 30, 2009, after the clearance completed on August 15, 2009. This was a full 35 days after the necessary 15 days needed after posting and 95 days after their extension of time from the May 11, 2009, call to the Fire Department. The Appellants claim they did not see the Re-inspection legally posted notice. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

118

SHADOW HILLS ESTATES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542007008 Page 2 completed on August 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The Fire, The record also reflects that Department correctly intervened to abate this serious fire risk. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellants. The Fire Inspector legally posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and The photographs provided by the Fire Inspector and City Contractor clearly depict the hazardous conditions at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1426.

119



HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173023 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: MARAR, MAURICE S MAILING ADDRESS: 785 PULLMAN RD HILLSBOROUGH CA 940106723 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ADJACENT TO 10135 WHEATLAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542015012 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing on May 11, 2010. Therefore, no opposition or opposing evidence was submitted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 11, 2009, and work was completed on August 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due

120

MARAR, MAURICE S ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542015012 Page 2 process as afforded the appellant, who failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on May 11, 2010. The record further shows that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a notice to abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1,426.

121


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173038 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: LONNY ROOT & PAUL MARRA MAILING ADDRESS: 9485 SUNLAND BLVD. SUN VALLEY CA 913521658 SITUS ADDRESS: 9485 SUNLAND BLVD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542028002 ASSESSMENT: $1712

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$600 $1112 $1712

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellants Mr. Lonny Root and Mr. Paul Marra appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellants (as co-owners) reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The (lost) “Zimas Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellants for the first time at the hearing. Appellant denied receipt of the red or the yellow posted notices, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that they believed that the clean-up work they had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellants added that they never received the Zimas map that the Department Inspector had sent them indicating the areas that needed to be cleared, and submitted Google© map pictures, along with estimated distances, of the entire area in question.

122

LONNY ROOT & PAUL MARRA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542028002 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on December 5, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. Photographs also show that the Department Inspector placed a yellow door-tag notice on the post box, and posted a red notice on the chain-link fence. Notices ended up returned. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notices were sent to the Appellants current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. However, the Department records also indicate that the “Official Notification” letters were returned by the US Postal service postmarked May 14, 2009 and July 20, 2009 as “Return to Sender/Attempted – Not Known/Unable to send.” This July 20, 2009 notification letter was decidedly important in this instance, since the Department Inspector herein included a Zimas map and hand-drew demarcation lines specifying those brush areas that the Appellants still needed to clear. Not having received this notification, it appears that the Appellants went on to clear a totally different area they understood needed clearance after their conversation with the Inspector on July 16, 2009, and not receiving the Inspector‟s July 20, 2009, letter with the Zimas map. Appellants measured a distance from the nearest structure to be 214 foot away, believed they were in compliance with that, and admitted doing no further work in that area.

123

LONNY ROOT & PAUL MARRA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2542028002 Page 3 Appellant‟s erroneous clearance efforts seems to be both understandable (and excusable). The Contractor Worksheet indicates work having been done by the owners, so apparently the Appellants were indeed undertaking the clearance efforts, which they said at the hearing they were doing themselves without additional help. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the clearance work on the property – that the Appellants should be responsible for those charges, but that given an apparent miscommunication in identifying the target areas, the return of two crucial official notifications, coupled with Appellants good faith efforts to comply, the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. The total assessment due is $600.

124


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173036 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: LOH INVESTMENT L P MAILING ADDRESS: 4435 EASTGATE MALL, #200 SAN DIEGO CA 921122910 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 9608 SUNLAND BL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2544009007 ASSESSMENT: $1612

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1112 $1612

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Ms. Robin Young, the Office Manager for Avalon Landscaping, appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 20, 2010 at 9:30 PM. Ms. Young stated that she contracted privately with Cushman Wakefield, the management company (in turn hired by Loh Investment Limited Partnership), the property owner, to do the required cleanup work. At the hearing, Ms. Young, (hereinafter “Appellant”), reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant stated that her company was awarded the private contract to complete the cleanup by the management company, and that normal business procedure was to be notified by the management company if there was any additional cleanup that needed to be done, and that her company would normally complete this work within one to two days of notification. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to the management company through the mails, and stated that her company was never informed by the management company that there were any problems with the completed work. Appellant suggested one possible

125

LOH INVESTMENT L P ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2544009007 Page 2 Answer was that there might have been a change in personnel at the management company regarding contact persons working for the management company. Appellant also stated that she believes she was not present at the Department‟s bid session when the clearance work was contracted out to another certified City contractor, and suggested that her company would be willing to pay for the cost of clearance, but requested that the administrative fee be reduced or waived. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of August 2, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 26, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 26, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 5, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the property owner‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do indicate returned mail, and an updated address being entered. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s company is listed among those on the Certified List disseminated by the Department as certified contractors, and as such knew, or should have

126

LOH INVESTMENT L P ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2544009007 Page 3 Known, the exact specifications and requirements for the clearance work they were undertaking. There was apparently an agreement between Appellant‟s company on the one side, and the management company and/or the owner on the other side, to do cleanup work that failed inspection. The Appellant apparently tried unsuccessfully to win approval to bid on redoing their work, but lost this bid to another City contractor, who completed the job successfully. Since the original work was performed under a private agreement that happened to not be done right, the communication breakdown between the Appellant and the management company surely is a matter between the contracting parties themselves, and not one where the Department could, would, or should interfere. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,612.

127


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173023 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 NAME: KINIKIN, LESLIE MAILING ADDRESS: 10817 TUXFORD ST SUN VALLEY CA 913522028 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2544012007 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing on May 11, 2010. Therefore, no evidence of opposition was presented. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

128

KINIKIN, LESLIE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2544012007 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the appellant, who failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on May 11, 2010. The record further shows that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a notice to abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total amount due is $1,426.

129


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: SCHULTZ, STEVE M MAILING ADDRESS: 9639 GREEN VERDUGO DR SUNLAND CA 910401635 SITUS ADDRESS: 9639 GREEN VERDUGO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2545002002 ASSESSMENT: $1412

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1112 $1412

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 10, 2010, at 1:45 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 27, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 27, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on January 4, 2010. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. However, the Department records do indicate that the “Official

130

SCHULTZ, STEVE M ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2545002002 Page 2 Notification” letter was returned by the US Postal service on 05/20/2009 as “Return to Sender.” The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. However, there does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and had sufficient notice, given the fact that the Official Notification letter was returned back to the Department. As such, it is recommended that while the Cost of Clearance should be upheld, the assessed Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. The total assessment due is $300.

131


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: TANABE, ROBERT M & BILLIE J MAILING ADDRESS: 5220 OCEAN VIEW BLVD LA CANADA CA 910111242 SITUS ADDRESS: 9643 GREEN VERDUGO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2545002003 ASSESSMENT: $1412

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1112 $1412

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing and stated that he believed that he had properly completed all of the required brush clearance prior to the proposed assessment. While the Appellant produced no photographic documentation, he stated that he believes that he cut the trees and shrubs by two feet, as he had done in previous years, and the Department‟s photographs reflect the vegetation and branches that he was gathering for placement in yard waste dumpsters. The Appellant added that he did not see the red abatement notice left on his property, adding that since this is a rental property his tenants may not have passed the notices to him, and felt that he should have been given an opportunity to comply as he had done in all the years previous. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 26, 2009.

132

TANABE, ROBERT M & BILLIE J ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2545002003 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 26, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on January 4, 2010. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The Inspector stated that she had a good recollection of the two houses on the property, and on her visits there she did notice that some work had been done, but that it was not in full compliance with the posted notices. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,412.

133


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173023 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: CLANCY, JAMES J & HOPE B MAILING ADDRESS: 9055 LA TUNA CYN. RD SUN VALLEY CA 91352-2221 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L BACK OF 9055 LA TUNA CYN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2545024014 ASSESSMENT: $1421

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$395 $1026 $1421

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Carol Santi, daughter of deceased Appellant appeared on his behalf with her brother, Christopher James Clancy in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Ms. Santi and her brother requested leniency on behalf of his estate since recently died on May 4, 2010, at the age of 88 years old. Appellant‟s daughter stated that her dad was ill last year, suffering from bladder cancer and had he not died there would have been a financial hardship due to protracted litigation regarding real estate fraud for his home at 9055 La Tuna Cyn. They also stated that he was in a skilled nursing facility and on a limited income. Mrs. Santi stated that she and her husband are paying bills of the estate personally though no formal estate representative has been appointed and the attorney meeting for the estate is next week. Ms. Santi stated that her dad has been in compliance for the last 50 years maintaining the weeds on his properties and these fees are not just, are punitive and she also stated that possibly her dad was charged for weeds that were on his neighbors property. There is no liquid cash on the estate. Mrs. Santi stated that her father‟s records reflect in his diary that he had paid people to clear his property and believes he acted in good faith. Appellant‟s son stated his dad always had people maintaining the properties. To help the Fire Department Mrs. Santi offered to personally assist and pay the brush clearance fee herself.

134

CLANCY, JAMES J & HOPE B ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2545024014 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant. The Fire Department Record confirms the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and disclosed that the property remained out of compliance. No mail was returned. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. It is recommended that Mrs. Santi update the County Assessor and the Fire Department with the correct mailing address for Appellant‟s estate. It is also recommended that the Mrs. Santi‟s address is 705 Highpoint Ct., Columbia, South Carolina 29212, be added as the supplemental address for Appellant‟s estate. While the total assessment may be appropriate, appellant for over 50 years has maintained his properties in good faith with no record of noncompliance. Given his extreme circumstances last year, and the statements as to the financial burden on Appellant‟s estate, it is recommended that the administrative fee be waived. The offer by Appellant‟s daughter to pay the brush clearance fee in the amount of $395.00 is accepted. The total assessment due is $395.

135


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172009 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: GASPARIAN, VARDANUSH MAILING ADDRESS: 7993 SANGAMON AVE SUN VALLEY CA 913524254 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/O 10266 SUNLAND BOULEVARD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2546012017 ASSESSMENT: $1901

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$875 $1026 $1901

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to attend the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. There was no opposition evidence submitted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 12, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 12, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

136

GASPARIAN, VARDANUSH ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2546012017 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total amount due is $1,901.00.

137


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172010 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: TEKHILA INVESTMENTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 914261006 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NE OF 10629 TURNBOW DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2547010034 ASSESSMENT: $1151

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1026 $1151

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant is contesting the Brush Clearance Assessment charges as they claim that the work was complete. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been waived. According to Fire Department records there is indeed some inconsistencies in the documentation. It does appear that the Appellant acted in good faith and therefore the Cost of Clearance and Administrative Fee are waived. The total assessment due is $0.00.

138


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172015 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: DOROMAL, PHIL N & JOY F MAILING ADDRESS: 13542 SIMSHAW AVE SYLMAR,CA 91342 SITUS ADDRESS: 8975 FOOTHILL BLVD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2547012003 ASSESSMENT: $1151

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1026 $1151

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM. The package file contained a letter the appellant submitted stating that the 8975 Foothill Boulevard property had been foreclosed upon September 2008. The Appellant also submitted a “Discharge of Debtor” Notice from the United States Bankruptcy Court dated March 3, 2009, and which lists this property in the Chapter 7 filing. The Appellant was contacted by telephone and a message was left on May 11, 2010, requesting the 2008 Letter of Foreclosure to the faxed to the Department‟s offices. No fax was received from the Appellant. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 1, 2009.

139

DOROMAL, PHIL N & JOY F ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2547012003 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. The Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. However, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were levied against this property, which the Appellant no longer owned. The Brush Clearance obligations were incurred against the property in October 2009 subsequent to the foreclosure sometime in September of 2008. The lien was incurred against the property after the Appellant had been foreclosed upon and the subsequent bankruptcy. Therefore, given the above circumstances, it is this Hearing Officer‟s recommendation that the Appellant‟s Total Assessment be waived. The total assessment due is $0.00.

140


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172010 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: HILLROSE INVESTMENTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 91426 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2547013022 ASSESSMENT: $1401

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$375 $1026 $1401

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellants attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing and agreed that they had received all notices. Their disagreement with the assessment was that they had cleared the property on May 10, 2009 and August 20, 2009, respectively. Unfortunately their clearance worker left a great deal of volatile brush and debris creating a Fire Hazard, which was clearly depicted in the Fire Inspector and City Contractor before and after photographs. The Appellants acknowledged the brush and debris left and in need of clearing on seeing the Fire Departments photographs, leaving the property in noncompliance. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 11, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

141

HILLROSE INVESTMENTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2547013022 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice; The Fire Department correctly intervened and followed proper procedure to afford the Appellant due process. The total assessment due is $1401.

142


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009172015 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: LAWS, LAWRENCE E & LAURA MAILING ADDRESS: 9677 FOOTHILL BLVD LAKE VIEW TERRACE, CA 91342 SITUS ADDRESS: 9677 FOOTHILL BLVD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2550009009 ASSESSMENT: $1401

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$375 $1026 $1401

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Lawrence Laws appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant states he has owned this property for 34 years and in the past has cleared to the base of a steep bluff on the property. Appellant stated that he thought he was in compliance and only received a notice of noncompliance posted on his gate in late September 2009. Appellant stated he did not have a reasonable time to comply and did have his crew clear the property before the City Contractor came out. Appellant stated he tried to contact the Inspector on the day the City Contractor came to his property on October 2, 2010, to stop their work and was unable to do and therefore the administrative cost is unreasonable. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 1, 2009. The property was not posted until September 20, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 2 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. There is record that mail was returned.

143

LAWS, LAWRENCE E & LAURA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2550009009 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. Clearly Appellant has attempted to act in good faith to comply with his brush clearance responsibilities though did not have a reasonable time to do so. Inspector stated that she would have called off the City Contractor had she receive Appellants phone call the day the City Contractor arrived. However the Inspector was not at work the day they arrived at Appellant‟s property so she did not receive Appellant‟s call. Inspector stated that while more work needed to be done, Appellant should have had the opportunity to complete any further brush clearance needed and that he had substantially complied with the notice. It should be noted that mail was returned and at the time of the second notice July 1, 2009, the property was not posted. The property was not posted until September 20, 2009, Appellant‟s crew cleared the brush on September 25, 2009, and the City Contractor cleared on October 2, 2009. Section 57.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, subsection C, states that the Los Angeles Fire Department shall give notice to the owner of record to abate the nuisance within 15 days. The notice shall either be posted on the property or mailed to the owner. Clearly, a reasonable amount of time has not been given to Appellant, nor has 15 days notice been given to Appellant. It is recommended that Appellant keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor and the Los Angeles Fire Department. It is recommended that the administrative fee be waived. The total assessment due is $395.00.

144


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 91426 SITUS ADDRESS: V/C SOUTH OF 7646 MEMORY DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2552031016 ASSESSMENT: $2021

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$995 $1026 $2021

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared at the hearing and stated that he believed that all of the required brush clearance had been completed, and that someone from his office had inspected the work prior to issuing payment. Appellant produced Invoice # 2 dated May 26, 2009, from “Aintablian Construction, Lic # 479340, 408 Raymond Ave., Glendale, CA 910201, in the amount of $2,500.00. The invoice indicated the property street name, and noted that the brush clearance work had been completed by May 10 thru May15, 2009, at a purported cost of $2,500.00. Appellant also added that he believed that there might have been an issue with notification sent to him from the department, indicating that his street address had changed in 2006. Respondent did state however that the P.O. Box 261006, Encino, California 91426 was a current and in-use mailing address. The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been completed.

145

SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2552031016 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 25, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $2021.

146


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173007 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 914362610 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2560036017 ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared at the hearing and stated that he believed that all of the required brush clearance had been completed, and that someone from his office had inspected the work prior to issuing payment. Appellant produced Invoice # 2 dated May 26, 2009, from “Aintablian Construction, Lic # 479340, 408 Raymond Ave., Glendale, CA 910201, in the amount of $2,500.00. The invoice indicated the property street name, and noted that the brush clearance work had been completed between May 10 thru May 15, 2009, at a purported cost of $2,500.00. Appellant also added that he believed that there might have been an issue with notification sent to him from the department, indicating that his street address had changed in 2006. Respondent did state however that the P.O. Box 261006, Encino, California 91426 was a current and in-use mailing address. The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been fully completed.

147

SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2560036017 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been completed. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. However, there does exist a question as to whether the Appellant was properly served and notice provided, given the fact that the Department‟s records indicate that the Official Notification mail was returned to the Department from the Ventura Avenue address. Therefore, it is recommended that the Administrative fees be waived. However, it appears that the Cost of Clearance fees were properly assessed. The total assessment amount due is $350.

148


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173007 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 914362610 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2560036018 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared at the hearing and stated that he believed that all of the required brush clearance had been completed, and that someone from his office had inspected the work prior to issuing payment. Appellant produced Invoice # 2 dated May 26, 2009, from “Aintablian Construction, Lic # 479340, 408 Raymond Ave., Glendale, CA 910201, in the amount of $2,500.00. The invoice indicated the property street name, and noted that the brush clearance work had been completed by May 10 May 15, 2009, at a purported cost of $2,500.00. Appellant also added that he believed that there might have been an issue with notification sent to him from the department, indicating that his street address had changed in 2006. Respondent did state however that the P.O. Box 261006, Encino, California 91426 was a current and in-use mailing address. The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been completed.

149

SF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2560036018 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1376.

150


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: LUKE VELLA MAILING ADDRESS: 10351 SAMOA AVE TUJUNGA CA 91042 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L SOUTH OF 8660 APPERSON ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2561003034 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 11, 2010, at 8H30 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009, with a Compliance date set for May 26, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 25, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. It appears that some brush clearance and abatement work had been undertaken. According to the “Contractor Worksheet,” it appears that there was brush clearance that was completed up to 100 feet from Topley Lane, but that no clean-

151

LUKE VELLA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2561003034 Page 2 up was visible on the property that was adjacent to Apperson Street. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. However, the Department records do indicate that the “Official Notification” letter was returned by the US Postal service on May 19, 2009, as “Return to Sender/Attempted – Not Known/Unable to Forward.” The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. However, there does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and notice provided, given the fact that the notification was returned to the Department. As such, it is recommended that while the Cost of Clearance is upheld, the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. The total Assessment due is $300.

152


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173007 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: MAF INVESTMENTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 914261006 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S OF 9428 GLEN-O-PLACE PARKWAY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2562011021 ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared at the hearing and stated that he believed that all of the required brush clearance had been completed, and that someone from his office had inspected the work prior to issuing payment. Appellant produced Invoice # 2 dated May 26, 2009, from “Aintablian Construction, Lic # 479340, 408 Raymond Ave., Glendale, CA 910201, in the amount of $2,500.00. The invoice indicated the property street name, and noted that the brush clearance work had been completed by May 10 thru May 15, 2009, at a purported cost of $2,500.00. Appellant also added that he believed that there might have been an issue with notification sent to him from the department, indicating that his street address had changed in 2006. Respondent did state however that the P.O. Box 261006, Encino, California 91426 was a current and in-use mailing address. The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been completed.

153

MAF INVESTMENTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2562011021 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 4, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 4, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. There appears to be no issue whether the Appellant was properly served, given the fact that the Department‟s records indicate that mail was sent to the Encino post office box address (which Appellant contends is a working and current address). According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1376.

154


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173036 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: WHITEBIRD INC MAILING ADDRESS: 500 EAST MAIN ST. SUITE 1100 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 SITUS ADDRESS: 7777 VERDUGO CRESTLINE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563026006 ASSESSMENT: $1597

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$485 $1112 $1597

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant Mr. Rick Purcell appeared on behalf of Rainbird, Inc. for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing accompanied by the company contractor, Mr. Steve Rapp. At the hearing, Appellant stated he had flown into town for this hearing, and reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work Mr. Rapp had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that the property in question is part of a 1,000 acre proposed development area that spans some 4.5 miles, and that he inspects the area by flying overhead in a helicopter. He said the violation in question must have simply been missed, and without notification, he had no ability to correct the problem with the assistance of Mr. Rapp.

155

WHITEBIRD INC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563026006 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 3, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 5, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The Department Inspector believed that the brush and trees that had been left on the property was as a result of “dumping” by a neighbor onto Appellant‟s property, but that his duty is to cite the property for the violation where it is found. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been fully completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. However, the Department records do indicate that the “Official Notification” letter was returned by the US Postal service on September 17, 2009 as “Return to Sender/Whitebird Inc., 500 Main Street, Suite # 1100, and Forth Worth, Texas 76102-3929.” The County Assessor Parcel Information Form does indicate that the Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas address was listed as the property owner‟s address with a recordation date of December 7, 2007. It is unclear why the Department sent mail to the Lamar Boulevard, Arlington Texas corporate address. Current records indicate an updated address. The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. However, there does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and sufficient notice provided, given the fact that the official notification sent out was returned to the Department. Appellant has provided credible testimony sufficient to weigh in favor of amending the Assessment against the property, especially given the fact that Department Inspector believed that the violation was caused by a neighbor‟s act.

156

WHITEBIRD INC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563026006 Page 3 As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the clearance work on the property – that the Appellant be responsible for those charges, but that the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. The total assessment due is $485.

157


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: TABASHNICK, SIMON M MAILING ADDRESS: 464 EAST MOUNTAIN RD. SOUTH COLD SPRING NY 105163825 SITUS ADDRESS: 9815 REDMONT ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563031017

ASSESSMENT: $1196

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$170 $1026 $1196

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared at the hearing and stated that he believed that all of the required brush clearance had been completed, and that someone from his office had inspected the work prior to issuing payment. Appellant produced Invoice # 2 dated May 26, 2009, from “Aintablian Construction, Lic # 479340, 408 Raymond Ave., Glendale, CA 910201, in the amount of $2,500.00. The invoice indicated the property street name, and noted that the brush clearance work had been completed by May 10 thru May 15, 2009, at a purported cost of $2,500.00. Appellant also added that he believed that there might have been an issue with notification sent to him from the department, indicating that his street address had changed in 2006. Respondent did state however that the P.O. Box 261006, Encino, California 91426 was a current and in-use mailing address. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 3, 2009.

158

TABASHNICK, SIMON M ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563031017 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 8, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than that indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been completed. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. However, there does exist a question as to whether the Appellant was properly served, given the fact that the Department‟s records indicate that mail was returned from the Encino Post Office Box address. Therefore, while it is recommended that the Administrative fees be waived, it appears that the Cost of Cleanup fee was properly assessed. The total assessment due is $170.

159



HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: SOLUK, GEORGE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1825 CAMARILLO CA 930111825 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ALONG HIGH TOP DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563031019 ASSESSMENT: $1196

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$170 $1026 $1196

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated that he did not receive the re-inspection notice, although he does not go to visit the property. The Fire Inspectors photographs clearly show the property Red Notice was posted affording the Appellant proper legal due process. The Appellant also stated that he had the property cleared and paid a worker to do the work, but the date he gave was after The City Contractor had cleared the same property. The Appellant also did not have any photographs as proof of his clearance. The City Contractors photographs showing the workers clearing were proof that they indeed completed the clearance and abatement of the fire hazard. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 8, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

160

SOLUK, GEORGE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563031019 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department correctly intervened and abated the serious fire hazard to protect this property and the community. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant the Fire Inspector legally posted the property and The Fire Inspector and City Contractor photographs depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1196.

161


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: MAF INVESTMENTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 261006 ENCINO CA 914261006 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 9815 REDMONT AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563031023 ASSESSMENT: $1141

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$115 $1026 $1141

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared at the hearing and stated that he believed that all of the required brush clearance had been completed, and that someone from his office had inspected the work prior to issuing payment. Appellant produced Invoice # 2 dated May 26, 2009, from “Aintablian Construction, Lic # 479340, and 408 Raymond Ave., Glendale, CA 910201, in the amount of $2,500.00. The invoice indicated the property street name, and noted that the brush clearance work had been completed by May 10 thru May 15, 2009, at a purported cost of $2,500.00. Appellant also added that he believed that there might have been an issue with notification sent to him from the department, indicating that his street address had changed in 2006. Respondent did state however that the PO Box 261006, Encino, California 91426 was a current and in-use mailing address. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

162

MAF INVESTMENTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563031023 Page 2 Completed on August 8, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. The Appellant stated that he had contracted to have the brush clearance work undertaken by a contractor that was not on the approved list, but that he was not sure why the work would have not been completed. With regard to this property, it appears that no abatement work had in fact been completed prior to contractor cleanup. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. There appears to be no issue whether the Appellant was properly served, given the fact that the Department‟s records indicate that mail was sent to the Encino Post Office Box address (which Appellant contends is a working and current address). Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1141.

163


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173018 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: GRIGORYAN, SUSANNA MAILING ADDRESS: 9733 HILLHAVEN AVE TUJUNGA CA 910423012 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASS SSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563042005 ASSESSMENT: $1206

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$180 $1026 $1206

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to her through the mails. Appellant stated that the house had been foreclosed upon, and was bank-owned when she purchased it through escrow in “December.” DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009, with a compiance due date of May 31, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

164

GRIGORYAN, SUSANNA ASS SSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563042005 Page 2 The County Assessors Parcel Information report indicated that the recording date of transfer of the property into Appellant‟s name took place on November 11, 2008. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1206.

165


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173018 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: AYALA,JULIO C & MARITZA Y MAILING ADDRESS: 826 W. 94 ST. LOS ANGELES CA 900444702 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NORTHWEST OF 9652 HILLHAVEN AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563042012 ASSESSMENT: $1206

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$180 $1026 $1206

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. The Appellant use an interpreter to state his appeal. The Appellant claimed he had cleaned the property and that the Fire Inspector did not understand the property lines. The Inspector, however, provided extensive photographs of all the markers of the said property including photographs of the same marked property being cleared by the City Contractor. The Appellant clearly had not taken care of his responsibility of clearing his property resulting in the intervention of the Fire Inspector.

DEPARTMENT INFORMATION

The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

166

AYALA,JULIO C & MARITZA Y ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2563042012 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. The Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazard conditions that existed as the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1206.

167


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: ESCOBAR, HERBERT & MAYA MAILING ADDRESS: 1839 N. AVENUE 51 LOS ANGELES CA 900421015 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/SIDE FLORA MORGAN TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2564027021 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 11, 2010, at 1:45 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

168

ESCOBAR, HERBERT & MAYA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2564027021 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1326.

169


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173034 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: RASSP, HERMAN TR ETAL MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 6548 BURBANK CA 915106548 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L SO. OF 6201 GYRAL DR. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2569013031 ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated that he cleans the lots every year and did so for the year of 2009. He called the Inspector and said he was done, but when the inspector viewed the property the work had not been completed. The Inspector sent Zima‟s maps to the Appellant, but the work was not done. The Appellant admitted that he received all notices, both mailed and posted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 20, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

170

RASSP, HERMAN TR ETAL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2569013031 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that the Appellant was afforded due process all notices and photographs required sent and posted as stated above. The Appellant, therefore, is responsible for the total assessment as stated in the notice. The total assessment due is $1376.

171


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173034 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: RASSP, HERMAN TR ETAL MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 6548 BURBANK CA 915106548 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L SO. OF 6201 GYRAL DR. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2569013032 ASSESSMENT: $1276

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$250 $1026 $1276

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated that he cleans the lots every year and did so for the year of 2009. He called the Inspector and said he was done, but when the inspector viewed the property the work had not been completed. The Inspector sent Zima‟s maps to the Appellant, but the work was not done. The Appellant admitted that he received all notices, both mailed and posted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 20, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

172

RASSP, HERMAN TR ETAL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2569013032 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that the Appellant was afforded due process all notices and photographs required sent and posted as stated above. The Appellant, therefore, is responsible for the total assessment as stated in the notice. The total assessment due is $1276.

173



HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: BRIGHT, JAMES H & LINDA A MAILING ADDRESS: 9451 REVERIE RD TUJUNGA CA 91042-2027 SITUS ADDRESS: HAINES CANYON AVE 10211 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2569025023 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 11, 2010, at 3:15 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. Notices were sent to both the property address where there appear to be renters, and to the property owner‟s address. Department records indicate that the mail sent to the renters was returned, but that the mail going to the property owner on Reverie Road was delivered.

174

BRIGHT, JAMES H & LINDA A ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2569025023 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld in its entirety. The total assessment due is $1326

175


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 20, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181027 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: ATHOS INVESTMENTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 21700 OXNARD ST. 1490 WOODLAND HILLS CA 913673644 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 12302 ZELZA AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2601023050 ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant did not appear in-person for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Mr. Raymond Montero, Manager, Ethos Investments LLC, (Appellant) faxed a letter dated May 19, 2009, which was received on May 20, 2009, appealing the Assessment. In his letter, Mr. Montero denied receipt of the red posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to the owner through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work contracted to Van Gogh landscaping had been sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that Athos Investment LLC, the property owner, had moved suite numbers in the same building in 2004, and thus were delayed in responding to the notifications in a timely manner. Appellant argued that he took what he characterized as decisive steps by having brush clearance work completed on June 9, 2009, two days after the compliance was due. Appellant indicates that there was communication between Mr. Tom Van Gogh and the Department regarding clearance work that still needed to be done. As such, Appellant argued for the waiving of the Assessment fee, and not the Cost of Clearance.

176

ATHOS INVESTMENTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2601023050 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 15, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. There is no record of any communication between the Appellant, or any agent or representative of his, and the Department from the time of initial inspection in May 2009, to when the City contractor completed the clearance work in August 2009, some four months. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. It would be incumbent upon the property owner to update owner address information. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had contracted for and had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported by any of the proffered documentation submitted as evidence. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1376.

177


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: KARAOGHLANIAN, VARTAN L MAILING ADDRESS: 400 W. CALIFORNIA AVE 302 GLENDALE CA 912032928 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF 11591 YARMOUTH ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2601038062 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He stated that he was on a deed of trust along with a few others on the cited property. He did receive notices, but was concerned about who is held responsible as the property went into foreclosure and is now in receivership. The Inspector explained that if none of the investors paid the assessment and it was confirmed there is a lien on the property and the City will be paid when the property is sold. The Appellant stated he understood and said that would be fine. The Fire Department was correct in taking action on the property and abating a very serious risk to the property and the neighborhood. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

178

KARAOGHLANIAN, VARTAN L ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2601038062 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. The record further reflects that all notices were legally mailed and posted as stated above. The total assessment due is $1326.

179


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: MICHELLE & BLAKE WELLS MAILING ADDRESS: 19354 CRYSTAL RIDGE LANE PORTER RANCH CA 913263811 SITUS ADDRESS: 19354 CRYSTAL RIDGE LN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2701007006 ASSESSMENT: $1526

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1026 $1526

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellants Mr. Blake and Ms. Michelle Wells appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellants as co-owners reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellants at the hearing. Appellants denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that they believed that the clean-up work was the responsibility of the previous owner, which in this case happened to be a bank. Appellants submitted detailed and voluminous evidence in support of their contentions: namely: the City of Los Angeles Residential Property Records; Emails back and forth from the Homeowners Association to the Sellers agent; Emails from the Sellers agent indicating that $2,200.00 had been paid by the Seller to have brush/trees removed prior to escrow closing; complete Sale Escrow Instructions; photographs taken by the Homeowners Association; photographs taken by the Appellants; and Emails back and forth between Appellants and their broker.

180

MICHELLE & BLAKE WELLS ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2701007006 Page 2 Appellants stated that they now believe that the responsibility rested upon the previous owner/seller, or that through the escrow company, to have paid the assessments levied prior to escrow closing, and that the Form 9A Report which they were not privy to would have provided evidence of the liens that needed to be paid by the previous owner, or the seller. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on March 12, 2009, with a compliance due date of April 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on May 18, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on May 18, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department‟s records the property was properly physically posted with signs. A red tag notice was physically posted, and in addition Official Notices were mailed the owner of record as it appeared in official records obtained from the County Assessor‟s Office. The Department records do not indicate any “Official Notification” letters being returned by the US Postal Service. It appears the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. The Form 9A Report that the Appellant was informed of after the fact had been generated during the sale process, did reflect the lien the Department recorded prior to the sale, not subsequent to it. The 9A Report is contained in the Department‟s package and shows the Fire Notice lien was recorded on May 27, 2009, and Appellant‟s escrow closed on November 3, 2009. After they received the fee assessment this year, Appellants stated that they called the escrow and Title Company and they entered into a protracted dispute to have the Report provided to them, finally stating that they went downtown and paid $70.00 to have the report hidden from them printed. Appellants state that they were informed during escrow that they did not need to see this Form 9A as the brush/weed abatement charges of $2,200.00 had been paid by the Seller‟s broker, and that all liens were “Cleared.”

181

MICHELLE & BLAKE WELLS ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2701007006 Page 3 This information was apparently factually inaccurate both as to the requirement that they view the Report, and regarding the stated past payment for and the Extinguishment of liens, as Appellants stated they subsequently discovered with some surprise. They pointed to their Sale Escrow instructions, page 2, which states mid-page in capital letters in pertinent part, “The parties are aware that the City requires that the Buyer receive a copy of said report prior to the transfer of title seller and buyer are aware that said report contains information pertinent to weed abatement,” and further Appellants point to their escrow instructions, which reads that “ Seller shall deposit into escrow 9A Residential Property Report issued by the City of Los Angeles, to be delivered to the Buyer prior to the close of escrow for Buyer‟s approval thereon.” Appellants state they are going back and forth in this current dispute and that someone somewhere in some company made an error and the lien was not detected. However, liens are recorded against the property, not the individual owner, and would so attach until paid in full from funds placed into escrow when the property sells. This did not occur in this instance. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the brush clearance work that was done on the property – the Appellant should be responsible for the Cost of Clearance, and additionally for the Administrative Fee. Appellants may in turn investigate additional remedies against the companies they were dealing with for the Fire Department lien that was not caught and cured through escrow. The total assessment due is $1526.

182


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181040 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: COLMER, WAYNE & ROBERTA TR MAILING ADDRESS: 23679 CALABASAS RD. #333 CALABASAS CA 913022552 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 10856 FARRALONE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2723005034 ASSESSMENT: $2776

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1750 $1026 $2776

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. Appellant stated that he had purchased about 8.6 acres of property with the view to building homes there, but that project ceased due to the bad economy. Appellant stated that he never received any of the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he had originally hired Pacoima Landscape who submitted an invoice to him on April 17, 2009, for “complete clearing weed abatement and remove tumbleweeds, brush, and debris per the City of Los Angeles Fire Prevention Requirements.” Appellant stated that he paid the Purchase Order # 2284 for $3,000.00. The company provided photographs to him dated May 28, 2009.

183

COLMER, WAYNE & ROBERTA TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2723005034 Page 2 Subsequently, further work was done by Four Seasons Landscape for $250.00 under Purchase Order # 2288 to “complete clearing weed abatement,” on or around August 28, 2009, when further work was deemed necessary when a Noncompliance Notice was received. Appellant stated that his Administrative Assistant, Ms. Alyssa Trebil, has visited the property parcels and taken the photographs he provided at the hearing, along with the photographs he said his contractor/landscaper took. Appellant appealed the $1,750.00 Cost of Clearance on this 4.0 acre property, stating that on the parcel ending in “049” he had been charged $280.00, and that this parcel was almost 6 acres in size. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 12, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 12, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. In fact the Department‟s Work Order states that owner did work, and that all that remained was clearing the trees primarily and some pockets of grass. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. However, the Department records do indicate that the “Official Notification” letter was returned by the US Postal service on May 26, 2009 as “Return to Sender/Not Deliverable as Addressed/Unable to Forward.” The bearing a yellow sticker that read, “Return to Sender: Roberta & Wayne Colmer Investments, 23679 Calabasas Road, Calabasas, CA 91302-1502.”

184

COLMER, WAYNE & ROBERTA TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2723005034 Page 3 The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and sufficient notice provided, given the fact that the official notification sent out was returned to the Department. However, the Appellant knew that brush clearance was needed and in fact undertook the clearance ahead the Department visiting the property, just that the work he contracted for was not completed in compliance as was represented to him it was. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the clearance work that was undertaken and completed on the property – that the Appellant be responsible for those charges. In addition, while the Appellant noted the dissimilarity between the Cost of Clearance between the two properties that he came in to contest, it should be noted that on this property there was significantly more labor-intensive work that needed to be done. According to the Department-issued Contractor Worksheet, the entire parcel needed to be cleared, and there was no prior clearance work that the Department Inspector discerned had already been completed. This is borne out by the Department‟s photographs taken on the day of posting, bid, and the contractors own “before” photographs. Therefore, it appears that both the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fee were properly assessed also and the Appellant is responsible for those charges. The total assessment due is $2776.

185


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: COLMER, WAYNE & ROBERTA TR MAILING ADDRESS: 23679 CALABASAS RD. #333 CALABASAS CA 913022552 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2723005049 ASSESSMENT: $1306

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$280 $1026 $1306

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. Appellant stated that he had purchased about 8.6 acres of property with the view to building homes there, but that project ceased due to the bad economy. Appellant stated that he never received any of the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he had originally hired Pacoima Landscape who submitted an invoice to him on April 17, 2009, for “complete clearing weed abatement and remove tumbleweeds, brush, and debris per the City of Los Angeles Fire Prevention Requirements.” Appellant stated that he paid the Purchase Order # 2284 for $3,000.00. The company provided photographs to him dated May 28, 2009.

186

COLMER, WAYNE & ROBERTA TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2723005049 Page 2 Subsequently, further work was done by Four Seasons Landscape for $250.00 under Purchase Order # 2288 to “complete clearing weed abatement,” on or around August 28, 2009, when further work was deemed necessary when a Noncompliance Notice was received. Appellant stated that his Administrative Assistant, Ms. Alyssa Treble, has visited the property parcels and taken the photographs he provided at the hearing, along with the photographs he stated his contractor took. Appellant appealed the $1,750.00 Cost of Clearance on this 4.0 acre property, stating that on the parcel ending in “049” he had been charged $280.00, and that this parcel was almost 6 acres in size. At the hearing the Appellant stated that he did not know that he needed to trim the trees six feet from the grounds, and that this was not part of the work order he paid for, and that had not been done. Appellant added that since he now knows that he needs to trim the trees as well, this would be done for this year. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 10, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 10, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 11, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The Department did indicate that clearance work had been done on the property, and the trees needed to be trimmed 6 feet from the ground. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. However, the Department records do indicate that the “Official Notification” letter was returned by the US Postal service on May 26, 2009 as “Return to COLMER,

187

COLMER, WAYNE & ROBERTA TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2723005049 Page 3 Sender/Not Deliverable as Addressed/Unable to Forward.” The Second Official Notification mailed on September 14, 2009, was also returned, bearing a yellow Post Office sticker that read, “Return to Sender: Roberta & Wayne Colmer Investments, 23679 Calabasas Road, Calabasas, CA 91302-1502.” The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There does appear to be an issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served and sufficient notice provided, given the fact that the official notification sent out was returned to the Department. However, the Appellant knew that brush clearance was needed and in fact undertook the clearance ahead the Department visiting the property. The Appellant apparently did not know that the work he contracted for was not in compliance as was represented to him it was. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the clearance work that was undertaken and completed on the property – that the Appellant be responsible for those charges. In addition, since the Appellant stated assuredly that the pepper trees had not been cleared to a distance of six feet off the ground as that was never part of the second purchase order, that the Administrative fee was properly assessed also and the Appellant is responsible for those charges. The total assessment amount due is $1306.

188


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181040 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: HUPPERT, LARRY & SUSAN MAILING ADDRESS: 9625 BADEN AVE CHATSWORTH CA 913112622 SITUS ADDRESS: 9625 BADEN AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2724011022 ASSESSMENT: $1262

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1112 $1262

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 17, 2010, at 3:15 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 2, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 12, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 12, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

189

HUPPERT, LARRY & SUSAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2724011022 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld in its entirety. The total assessment due is $1262.

190


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: LAGAST, SONJA L MAILING ADDRESS: 10744 ETON AVE CHATSWORTH CA 91311 SITUS ADDRESS: 19265 CASTLEBAY LN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2820008002 ASSESSMENT: $1216

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$190 $1026 $1216

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. She claimed that she did not receive notices as they went to the property address, but later did agree that the tenant sent her the re-inspection notice. The Appellant also stated that there was some confusion with getting her change of address; however she did receive all notices. No mail was returned to the Fire Department. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 12, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 10, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 10, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was Completed on September 7, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

191

LAGAST, SONJA L ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2820008002 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. The Fire Department was correct to intervene in thus extremely high-risk area and the record further reflects that the Fire sent and posted all required notices and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1216.

192


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 12 NAME: BEVERLY REAGAN MAILING ADDRESS: 19227 CASTLEBAY LANE PORTER RANCH CA 91326-1008 SITUS ADDRESS: 19227 CASTLEBAY LN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2820008007 ASSESSMENT: $1216

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$190 $1026 $1216

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that she and her husband never received any of the Notification notices that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that they believed that any assessments should have been detected through the title insurance company as part of the escrow process required when purchasing a new home. Appellant added that she believed that any and all charges should have been the responsibility of the previous owner. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 12, 2009, with a coimpliannce due date on June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 10, 2009.

193

BEVERLY REAGAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2820008007 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 10, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 7, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department‟s records the property was properly physically posted with signs. A red tag notice was physically posted, and in addition Official Notices were mailed the owner of record as it appears in official records obtained from the County Assessor‟s Office. The Department records do not indicate any “Official Notification” letters being returned by the US Postal Service. It appears the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. The Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. The Department‟s records do indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs, and notices did get mailed, but there does appear to be an issue as to whether this Appellant was properly served. Appellant and her husband purchased the property and escrow closed on November 19, 2009. According to the Encore Escrow Company Inc. documentation charges were made for Compliance Disclosure Fees, and undoubtedly title insurance. According to the Form 9 Application the lien placed against the property for unpaid clearance fees posted on August 12, 2009, and their purchase finalized and closed through escrow closed on November 18, 2009, some three months later. Appellant questioned why the title company had not detected this lien. The Appellant also produced a letter sent from the Department to the previous owner, which she and her husband received and readdressed to the Post Office, which came back returned, stamped “Return to Sender. Not Deliverable Addressed. Unable to Forward.”

194

BEVERLY REAGAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 2820008007 Page 3 The „Form 9A” report is usually generated to detect any liens that have been recorded against a property, and is one of the steps completed through escrow. Liens are recorded against the property, not the individual owner, and would so attach until paid in full from funds placed into escrow when the property sells. As such, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that since a benefit was conferred - the brush clearance work that was done on the property – the Appellant should be responsible for the Cost of Clearance, and additionally for the Administrative Fee. Appellant may in turn investigate additional remedies against the escrow or title companies for the Fire Department lien that was not caught and cured through escrow The total assessment due is $1216.

195


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174029 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: GORDON, ROBERT MAILING ADDRESS: 9665 HEATHER RD BEVERLY HILLS CA 902101757 SITUS ADDRESS: 9665 HEATHER RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352001037 ASSESSMENT: $2176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1150 $1026 $2176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant is deceased. No representative appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing on his behalf. There were several communications with the Fire Department that they would do a written appeal, but called back and cancelled. Since no one made an appearance either by writing or in person the Appellant has therefore defaulted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

196

GORDON, ROBERT ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352001037 Page 2

PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed decision against the deceased Appellant‟s property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice .The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant, who being deceased could not attend the hearing. The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $2176.

197


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: JACOB WIZMAN MAILING ADDRESS: 727 NO ALTA DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 9675 HEATHER CT ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352001047 ASSESSMENT: $2326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1300 $1026 $2326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Jacob Wizman appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. The property is a vacant lot. Mr. Wizman stated that he does pay a gardener annually to take care of the brush clearing for all of his parcels. Via telephone he placed his gardener on speaker to confirm his statement that he contracts with him and that the gardener completed work to brush clear this parcel along with parcel 4352-001-048 in 2009. He has requested that the administrative fees and costs to clear be waived on both parcels 4352-001-047 and 4352-001-048 since he would be paying twice for the brush clearing work he had paid for to his gardener and which was completed. He further stated that he contacted Inspector Sesma while at the property and was told it was too late to complete further work since the City Contractor bid had been accepted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 20, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 20, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

198

JACOB WIZMAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352001047 Page 2 Completed on August 21, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. The Fire Department and City Contractor records show that some work was completed on the property. The Fire Department Record confirms the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and disclosed that the property remained out of compliance. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Appellant did contact the Fire Inspector for an extension, which was not granted. A good faith attempt was made to comply. Appellant was assessed administrative fees and brush clearance fees on two other adjoining parcels (4352-001-048 and 4387-025-001) which total $7,702.00 and stated he paid the noncompliance fees on those two parcels already. It was recommended that the Appellant explore the possibility of hiring a City Contractor familiar with this type of terrain to clear brush in the future. Appellant is further advised to contact the County Assessor to verify his current mailing address and to keep it current. The total assessment due is $1,300.

199


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: JACOB WIZMAN MAILING ADDRESS: 727 NO ALTA DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 SITUS ADDRESS: 1865 HEATHER CT ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352001048 ASSESSMENT: $1076

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$50 $1026 $1076

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Jacob Wizman appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. The property has a home on it, which is currently on the market for sale, occupied by his nephew. Mr. Wizman stated that he does pay a gardener annually to take care of the brush clearing for all of his parcels. Via telephone he placed his gardener on speaker to confirm his statement that he contracts with him and that the gardener completed work to brush clear this parcel along with parcel 4352-001-047 in 2009. He has requested that the administrative fees and costs to clear be waived on both parcels 4352-001-047 and 4352-001-048 since he would be paying twice for the brush clearing work he had paid for to his gardener and which was completed. He further stated that he contacted Inspector Sesma while Appellant was at the property with his gardener to coordinate brush clearance and was told it was too late to complete further work since the City Contractor bid had been accepted and was scheduled. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 20, 2009.

200

JACOB WIZMAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352001048 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 20, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 21, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. The Fire Department Record confirms the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and disclosed that the property remained out of compliance. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Due process was afforded Appellant. Appellant is recommended to inform his Realtors that the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 requires that the seller of residential property provide and RPR, Residential Property Report, RPR, or Form 9A, also known as a 9A Report to the new buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow in connection therewith. Appellant is advised to provide the new Buyer with the current LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder publication, which includes an independent contractors list provided as a convenience only to property owners. It was recommended that the Appellant explore the possibility of hiring a City Contractor familiar with this type of terrain to clear brush in the future on his parcels. Appellant is further advised to contact the County Assessor to verify his current mailing address and to keep it current. The total assessment due is $1,076.

201


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: MIRDAMADI, AMIR B & LINDA M MAILING ADDRESS: 10456 LINDBROOK DR LOS ANGELES CA 900243330 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF 1535 GILCREST DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352008048 ASSESSMENT: $1876

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$850 $1026 $1876

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Amir Mirdamadi appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Mr. Mirdamadi stated that he maintains this property and also a property for his sister also on appeal parcel 4352-009-024. Mr. Mirdamadi stated that in the past he has always cleared the properties at the end of April beginning of May. However, in February 2009 he cleared the properties in February, leaving some vegetation in plastic bags from the clearing on the property. He asks that the fees be waived because he had cleared the properties. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

202

MIRDAMADI, AMIR B & LINDA M ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352008048 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. The Fire Department Record confirms the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and disclosed that the property remained out of compliance. No mail was returned. Due process was afforded Appellant. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The Fire Department and City Contractor records show that some work was completed on the property. The total assessment due is $1,876.

203


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: MIRDAMADI, AMIREH M MAILING ADDRESS: 144 WEATHERVANE IRVINE CA 926034226 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/O 1529 GILCREST DRIVE1 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352009024 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Amir Mirdamadi appeared on behalf of his sister Appellant Amireh Mirdamadi in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Mr. Mirdamadi stated that he maintains the property for his sister along with his property that is also on appeal parcel 4352-008-048. Mr. Mirdamadi stated that in the past he has always cleared the properties end of April beginning of May. However, in February 2009 he cleared the properties in February, leaving some vegetation in plastic bags from the clearing on the property. He asks that the fees be waived because he had cleared the property and that the red notice posted was on his neighbor‟s property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

204

MIRDAMADI, AMIREH M ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4352009024 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as indicated on the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Invoice. The Fire Department Record confirms the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and disclosed that the property remained out of compliance. No mail was returned. Due process was afforded Appellant. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The Fire Department and City Contractor records show that some work was completed on the property. The total assessment due is $1,226.

205


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009178028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: KPODO, FRANK & MARCIA MAILING ADDRESS: 4334 PALMERO BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 900084928 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/O 860 MONTLINE LN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371025015 ASSESSMENT: $1776

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$750 $1026 $1776

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to her through the mails, but stated that she and her husband have owned this property for over twenty years, and that this was the first year that her property was in non-compliance. She said that she did not get the clearance work done, as she did not know that any such work was needed. Appellant added that she has also only visited that property once in that time frame, and that the original purchase had been made in the hope that the area would later be developed. This did not occur, and the property is still a vacant lot. With regard the hearing, Appellant said that she thought the $300 Non-Compliance Fee was an installment payment for this Total Assessment.

206

KPODO, FRANK & MARCIA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371025015 Page 2 Appellant indicated that since she and her husband were on fixed income the imposition of the Assessment was a financial hardship. On May 26, 2010, Appellant provided a copy of her joint U. S. Individual tax Return for consideration. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 17, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant requested that her financial information be held in the strictest confidence. The document that the Appellant provided was reviewed, and the appropriate weight considered. It appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1776.

207


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009178035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: VON RATH, RENATE TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 17143 ESCALON DR ENCINO,CA 91426 SITUS ADDRESS: VL EO 1312 N BEVERLY GLEN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371030005 ASSESSMENT: $1287

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$175 $1112 $1287

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 14, 2010, at 10:15 AM. Mr. Peter Rath submitted a letter, signed and dated May 5, 2010, wherein he stated that it had been the previous owners to whom the notices were mailed concerning the brush clearance; and that as of January 1, 2010, the Von Rath Trust was no longer the owner of record of the property due to the passage of the trust beneficiary. Appellant added that he felt it unjust for the new owner to pay a fine when improper notice of clearance was given. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of September 24, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 25, 2009.

208

VON RATH, RENATE TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371030005 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The information contained in the package does indicate that when the brochure was returned, a supplemental address was located, to which mail was sent and which was not returned. Additional time had been afforded the property owner when the original Cleaned by Owner (CBO) notification had been rescinded, and notification was sent to the property owner. According to the County Assessor Parcel Information form Mr. Peter Rath was the second property owner on record along with the Von Rath Trust, who jointly owned the property since 1994. No changes in ownership were reflected in the current report. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1287.

209


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009178035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: FARHAD, YAGHABI MAILING ADDRESS: 454 S. LA PEER DR. BEVERLY HILLS CA 902113504 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/E 1402 BEVERLY GLEN BL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371032014 ASSESSMENT: $1307

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$195 1026 $1307

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled for May 14, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of September 24, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 25, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

210

FARHAD, YAGHABI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371032014 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s current address. The Department records do not indicate that any Official Notices were returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1307.

211


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009178029 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: NELSON, ERIC MAILING ADDRESS: 1350 N. LAKE SHORE DR. #1014 CHICAGO, IL 60610 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/O 10334 CARIBOU ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371046009 ASSESSMENT: $1141

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$115 $1026 $1141

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant did not appear at the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing, but submitted a letter, signed and dated February 23, 2010. In this letter, Appellant wrote in pertinent part, “Please accept this note I did receive an official warning from the Brush Unit that I did not respond to or take action on my reason for delay has been due to my losing my former residence have since moved to an apartment.” DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 29, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 26, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 26, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 11, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

212

NELSON, ERIC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371046009 Page 2 The package does indicate the brochure that was mailed to the Appellant was returned, and a supplemental address was utilized for mailing the notices. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1141.

213


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009178022 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: NELSON, ERIC MAILING ADDRESS: 1350 N. LAKE SHORE DR. #1014 CHICAGO, IL 60610 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/O 10334 CARIBOU LANE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371046012 ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant did not appear at the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing, but submitted a letter, signed and dated February 23, 2010. In this letter, Appellant wrote in pertinent part, “Please accept this note did receive an official warning from the Brush Unit that I did not respond to or take action on my reason for delay has been due to my losing my former residence have since moved to an apartment.” DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of August 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 28, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 28, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

214

NELSON, ERIC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4371046012 Page 2 The package does indicate the brochure that was mailed to the Appellant was returned, and a supplemental address was utilized for mailing the notices. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1376.

215


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009183035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: FONDA, PETER MAILING ADDRESS: 2179 LINDA FLORA DR LOS ANGELES, CA 900771408 SITUS ADDRESS: 2179 LINDA FLORA DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4377009007 ASSESSMENT: $2012

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$900 $1112 $2012

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He admitted that he had received all notices; both mailed and posted on his property. He stated that had hired a worker to clear the property, but while the appellant was in Italy the worker called and reported he could not do the clearance. The Inspector stated that the property is in an extremely volatile area. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 17, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

216

FONDA, PETER ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4377009007 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The Department record and the Appellants admission that he received all notices shows he was afforded due process. Since the Fire Department had to have the City Contractor clear the property the Appellant shall be responsible for all costs.

The total assessment due is $2012.

217


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: AUDREY THOMPSON-PLAGER MAILING ADDRESS: 10314 ROSSBURY PLACE LOS ANGELES CA 90064 SITUS ADDRESS: 1801 ROSCOMARE RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4377015003 ASSESSMENT: $1462

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1112 $1462

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Executrix Audrey Thompson-Plager appeared on behalf of the Estate of her recently deceased mother Ludmilla Scholz. Appellant states that she never received the first notice of noncompliance and was unaware of any violation until her Realtor; Jeffrey Saad of Saad Realty informed her he found the red notice posted on the property. Appellant states that her mother died in October of 2007, she changed the mailing address to her home address and that the property has been empty for two years and recently sold it to Mikhak Bahador on March 25, 2010. Appellant states that she also paid $50 to contest the noncompliance fee billing. Appellant states she did not have enough time to clear the property due to not receiving adequate notice and had the notice identified the Inspector or the phone number to call she could have made arrangements coordinating the clearance. Appellant did state that upon receiving the notice she immediately contacted her gardener for an estimate and scheduled it to be cleared for $800, however when the gardener visited the property it had already been cleared. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 6, 2009.

218

AUDREY THOMPSON-PLAGER ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4377015003 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant with respect to the posted notice. There is record that mail was returned with respect to the First Notice of Noncompliance. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Ms. Thompson-Plager presented Exhibit B stating that this was the only notice she received which is the Second Notice of Noncompliance (addressed to Ludmilla Sholz Estate) dated October 6, 2009. The notice does not have a phone number or Inspector information of whom to contact. Upon receiving the notice she contracted with her gardener to do the work so noted, however, when he went to the property the work was already done. Appellant was informed that the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 requires that the seller of residential property provide and RPR, Residential Property Report, RPR, or Form 9A, also known as a 9A Report to the new buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow in connection therewith. The 9A does show that the Fire notice was not clear for August 28, 2008 and for October 6, 2009. The Fire Department is advised to send the new owner the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder and a copy of this decision. The total assessment due is $1,462.

219


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183034 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: GIRO PROPERTIES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 315 S. BEVERLY DRIVE SUITE 415 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212-2928 SITUS ADDRESS: LARGE V/PARCEL S/E OF 2800 BLK OF MORAGA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4378003004 ASSESSMENT: $4612

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$3500 $1112 $4612

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Todd I. Grayson, Attorney at Law is the President of Giro Properties LLC and the Agent for Service of Process. Appellant states Giro Properties own 265 acres in the area of Bellaire Crest, which is accessible via the Santa Monica Trail and via a fire road. Appellant states that the 265 acres is comprised of 3 parcels of vacant land, two parcels that have been offensively overcharged by the City Contractor for the brush clearance and by the Fire Department Assessment of Administrative fees. This parcel is 71.02 acres and the second parcel being appealed today is 10,019 square feet, parcel 4378-011-015. Appellant states that he was not afforded the opportunity to remedy the brush clearance requested by the Fire Department at a reasonable cost. Appellant states that notices were sent to an 9401 Wilshire, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 an address he has moved from and he stated that he changed the address with the post office to forward his mail to 315 S. Beverly Drive Suite 415, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, Appellant stated he never received the Second Notice of noncompliance and therefore thought he was in compliance and stated that he had his contractor meet with the Inspector to identify what needed to be cleared. Appellant further stated that the posting of a notice on the fence was not posted on his property though agreed it was at a visible access point. Appellant stated that with such a large parcel to be cleared, clarification as to exactly what needs to be cleared is difficult to understand.

220

GIRO PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4378003004 Page2 Appellant submitted Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2, bills ($300 each for this parcel and parcel 4378-011-015 from the Brush Clearance Department for Noncompliance) that are addressed to the previous owners of 3 years ago at their address forwarded to him by the previous owners. Appellant in an attempt to show compliance submitted Exhibit B, an invoice dated June 25, 2009 from Cruz Construction & Landscape in the amount of $4000 and Exhibit C, dated December 7, 2009 in the amount of $1800.00 from Cruz Construction & Landscape noted specifically as work completed to comply with Fire Department for his Linda Flora Dr. vacant land which is not subject of this appeal. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The Fire Department may require more than the minimum specific requirements set forth in the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 52.21.07 Hazardous Vegetation, when the Chief determines that conditions exist, which necessitate greater fire protection measures. Appellant is to take notice that the Fire Department policy is to award the City Contractor (currently there are 14 approved contractors) with the lowest bid the contract to clean noncompliant property.

221

GIRO PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4378003004 Page3 Inspector stated that there is an issue with a parcel of this size in identifying what needs to be cleared and that the City Contractor was not clear on what needed to be done and that he also needed to go back out again to complete the clearance per Inspectors instruction. Inspector and Appellant have agreed that 200 feet clearance from 15406 Mill dales, 15503 Hammer, 15559 Hammer, 24077 Nail, 2397 Nail is Appellant‟s responsibility but not limited to these addresses. It was further agreed to between Inspector and Appellant that Appellant will have his contractor complete work by May 1st every year and call Inspector upon the completion of the brush clearance to coordinate a time for the Inspector to meet at the property to inspect the work done for compliance. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor and a supplemental address on file with the Fire Department. The total assessment due is $4,612.

222


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009183034 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: GIRO PROPERTIES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 315 S. BEVERLY DRIVE SUITE 415 BEVERLY HILLS CA 902122928 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 15400 MILLDALE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4378011015 ASSESSMENT: $1477

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$365 $1112 $1477

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Todd I. Grayson, Attorney at Law is the President of Giro Properties LLC and the Agent for Service of Process. Appellant states Giro Properties own 265 acres in the area of Bellaire Crest, which is accessible via the Santa Monica Trail and via a fire road. Appellant states that the 265 acres is comprised of 3 parcels of vacant land, two parcels that have been offensively overcharged by the City Contractor for the brush clearance and by the Fire Department Assessment of Administrative fees. This parcel is 10,019 square feet and the second parcel being appealed today is 71.02 acres, parcel 4378-003-004. Appellant states that he was not afforded the opportunity to remedy the brush clearance requested by the Fire Department at a reasonable cost. Appellant states that notices were sent to an 9401 Wilshire, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 an address he has moved from and he stated that he changed the address with the post office to forward his mail to 315 S. Beverly Drive Suite 415, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, Appellant stated he never received the Second Notice of noncompliance and therefore thought he was in compliance and stated that he had his contractor meet with the Inspector to identify what needed to be cleared. Appellant further stated that the posting of a notice on the fence was not posted on his property though agreed it was at a visible access point. Appellant stated that with such a large parcel to be cleared, clarification as to exactly what needs to be cleared is difficult to understand.

223

GIRO PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4378011015 Page 2 Appellant submitted Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2, bills ($300 each for this parcel and parcel 4378-003-004 from the Brush Clearance Department for Noncompliance) that are addressed to the previous owners of 3 years ago at their address forwarded to him by the previous owners. Appellant in an attempt to show compliance submitted Exhibit B, an invoice dated June 25, 2009 from Cruz Construction & Landscape in the amount of $4000 and Exhibit C, dated December 7, 2009 in the amount of $1800.00 from Cruz Construction & Landscape noted specifically as work completed to comply with Fire Department for his Linda Flora Dr. vacant land which is not subject of this appeal. Appellant stated that upon his contractor meeting with the Inspector he would expect it to be reasonable for the Inspector to inform his gardener or at least discuss this parcel and parcel 4378-003-004 if there still was brush remaining to be cleared. Since there was no discussion again he felt he was in compliance. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The Fire Department may require more than the minimum specific requirements set forth in the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 52.21.07 Hazardous

224

GIRO PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4378011015 Page 3 Vegetation, when the Chief determines that conditions exist, which necessitate greater fire protection measures, appellant is to take notice that the Fire Department policy is to award the City Contractor (currently there are 14 approved contractors) with the lowest bid the contract to clean noncompliant property. Inspector stated that there was a need for the City Contractor to revisit and clear more brush on this parcel and parcel 4378-003-004. It is clear that the issue is with identifying accurately what needed to be cleared on Appellants property (265 acres in the area) in this appeal and in appeal on parcel 4378-003-004. Fire Department record for Appellants other property 4377-002-004 does reflect the good faith attempt (via discussions between Appellant‟s gardener and the Inspector on November 2, 2009 and November 25, 2009) of Appellant to comply with his brush clearance responsibilities. Inspector and Appellant have agreed that 200 feet clearance from 15406 Milldale, 15503 Hamner, 15559 Hamner, 24077 Nalin, 2397 Nalin is Appellant‟s responsibility but not limited to these addresses. It was further agreed to between Inspector and Appellant that Appellant will have his contractor complete work by May 1st every year and call Inspector upon the completion of the brush clearance to coordinate a time for the Inspector to meet at the property to inspect the work done for compliance. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor and a supplemental address on file with the Fire Department. The total assessment due is $365.

225


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174044 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: FISHER, GRETCHEN A MAILING ADDRESS: 10228 NORWICH AVE. MISSION HILLS, CA 91345 SITUS ADDRESS: 9839 PORTOLA DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4383006020 ASSESSMENT: $1406

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$380 $1026 $1406

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Ms. Gretchen Fisher (Appellant) appeared with Mr. Miguel Hernandez for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant did not acknowledge receipt of the red-posted notice, but stated that her son gave the Notification notices to her after the due dates for compliance. Irrespective of that, Appellant stated that she had been in contact with a Department representative, and that Mr. Hernandez had undertaken both the cleanup of brush as well as metal boxes and furniture, which she believed had cleaned an area equal to 250 feet from the structure on the property. Appellant also provided Invoice # 814665 from “Brian Alexander” whom she claimed was on the previous list of City Certified contractors, which shows the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, and shows the amount paid as $360.00. Appellant stated that she had used Mr. Alexander‟s services that cleared the brush and trees according to code specifications. A Department of Water and Power (DWP) bill for 2010 was also provided at the hearing.

226

FISHER, GRETCHEN A ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4383006020 Page 2 Appellant added that the imposition of the Assessment constituted an extreme financial hardship, but failed to provide any further documentation in substantiation. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 10, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 1, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address from the County Assessors Office. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. In fact, the file package contains a Certified Letter signed for by the Appellant on June 25, 2009, received at the site address. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1406.

227


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174044 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: HILLARY SLEVIN MAILING ADDRESS: 9801 EASTON DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS CA 902101416 SITUS ADDRESS: 9801 EASTON DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4383008001 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that she has no issue with the red-posted notice, or Notification notices that were sent to the previous owner prior to her short sale on the property effective November 20, 2009. Appellant provided a copy of her escrow “Buyers Final Settlement Statement received from GB Escrow itemizing the costs and charges; the Annual Property Tax Information Statement 2009 which reflects “Brush Removal” and a charge of $2,056.00; and the Grant Deed reflecting the quick sale also dated November 20, 2009. Appellant added that she was contesting the Assessment fee, as well as the Noncompliance Fee, believing these were the responsibility of the previous owner, and that the sale went through escrow.

228

HILLARY SLEVIN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4383008001 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 1, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The package contained a “Form 9 Application” which showed uncollected assessments for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The date for the year in question shows “September 8, 2009.” PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Liens are recorded against the property, not the individual owner, and would so attach until paid in full from funds placed into escrow when the property sells. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1426.

229


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174044 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: KANTOR, JAMES R MAILING ADDRESS: 10501 WILSHIRE BLVD. #808 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 SITUS ADDRESS: 2017 BENEDICT CANYON DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4383015028 ASSESSMENT: $1506

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$480 $1026 $1506

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 12, 2010, at 9:30 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 9, 2009, the property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 1, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

230

KANTOR, JAMES R ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4383015028 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs, including a yellow door tag. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1506.

231


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174039 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: TOWER PARK PROPERTIES LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 2029 CENTURY PARK E 19TH LOS ANGELES CA 900672901 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L WEST OF BEESON DRIVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4384019017 ASSESSMENT: $1616

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$590 $1026 $1616

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record.


The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 10, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 17, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

232

TOWER PARK PROPERTIES LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4384019017 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed on the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous condition that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1616.

233


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: WIZMAN- JACOB LO TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 727 NO ALTA DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 1900 BLK OF COLDWATER CYN DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4387025001 ASSESSMENT: $6626

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$5600 $1026 $6626

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Jacob Wiz man appeared and stated that he made a mistake in the appeal and that he thought he was appealing the brush clearing fees, administrative fees and noncompliance fees on parcel 4352-001-047. With respect to parcel 4387-025-001 he states that he received notices and tried to gain access to this parcel though there is a gate in place on his access area to the parcel. He states that the gate access is in exclusive control of his adjoining neighbor, which prevents him from access to the property. On numerous occasions he tried to contact the adjoining neighbor for access to brush clear, however she was on vacation or otherwise unavailable and did not respond back to him. He stated that he spends most of his time in Europe and for years has had a gardener that clears the brush on all of his properties and did so on parcels 4352-001-047 and 4352-001-048 prior to the Fire Department awarding the contract to the City Contractor for Brush Clearance. During the hearing Mr. Wizman called his gardener to confirm clearance and the gardener was placed on speaker and stated that he clears the property for Mr. Wizman. Mr. Wizman states that he is unaware of the supplemental address 6165 Tapia Dr., Malibu, CA 90265 to which notices were sent c/o Joyce L Eisen TR.

234

WIZMAN- JACOB LO TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4387025001 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 18, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 18, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 20, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Parcel 4352-001-047 is not in consideration for this appeal. The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount of $6,626.00 as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant. The Fire Department Record confirms the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and disclosed that the property remained out of compliance. No mail was returned. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depicted the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $6,626.

235


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174040 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: MC GHEE, DANIEL MAILING ADDRESS: 2048 COTNER AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90025 SITUS ADDRESS: 2301 KIMRIDGE RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4388006027 ASSESSMENT: $1166

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$140 $1026 $1166

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Mr. Daniel McGee, (Appellant) appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing, with Mr. Antonio Contreras, who completed the cleanup work. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant acknowledged receipt of the red-posted notice, as well as the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails. Appellant Stated that he believed that the clean-up work Mr. Contreras performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that the parcel of land had been cleared approximately by one third at the top, and then he had received a second notice, and cleared another third of the parcel in the middle.

236

MC GHEE, DANIEL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4388006027 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 18, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 18, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant acknowledged at the hearing that it was apparent to him that the clean up that had been undertaken had just not been as extensive as was needed to meet the 200-foot code requirements. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1166.

237


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009174048 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: HAUCK, ANNE MAILING ADDRESS: 2200 COLDWATER CANYON DR. BEVERLY HILLS CA 902101737 SITUS ADDRESS: 2200 COLDWATER CANYONDR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4388008028 ASSESSMENT: $2412

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1300 $1112 $2412

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Mr. Wolf Schmidt (Appellant) appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, as well as the Notification notices that was sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he had hired Mr. Dagoberto Urbina to complete the brush clearance, and that each year prior he had received a “Cleaned by Owner” (CBO) stating the brush clearance was satisfactory and that the property was in compliance. Appellant provided his 2008 Department of Fire “Cleaned by Owner” notice.

238

HAUCK, ANNE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4388008028 Page 2 Appellant stated that he believed that he would be given time this year to complete the clean-up, and was surprised when a Department Inspector notified him that the clean-up work was already contracted out, and complained that he felt he had been unfairly treated. On May 14, 2010, Appellant faxed a letter to the attention of the Hearing Examiner wherein he reiterated his belief that when he talked to the Inspector who was assigned his case on October 19, 2009, there was still as yet no accepted bid on his parcel, and that when he told the inspector he was going to take care of the clearance the very next day, there was still an opportunity for him to do this. It is Appellant‟s stated belief that the Department went out of its way to make a finding that he was not in compliance just to levy the Assessment fee, and he offered to pay for the $1,300.00 cost of Clearance alone. It is the Appellant‟s further contention that the red posted notice was placed what he characterized as the furthest point and in the steepest area on his property thereby ensuring it evaded detection, in what he labeled as “purposeful deviousness.” DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 29, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 29, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The information as contained in the package also indicate that the Appellant was in fact granted a period of about four months during which time the brush clearance could have been completed before a work order was created. Additionally, in addition to the posting of the red notice placed on a stake on the property, the record also indicated (via photographic evidence) that the Department did place a Yellow door-tag notice on September 29, 2009, along with the mailed notifications.

239

HAUCK, ANNE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4388008028 Page 3 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner according to the necessary code requirements to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. The documents in the package reveal that Contractor Worksheet had in fact been completed on October 1, 2009, and the photographs in the package taken by the contractor show the clearance work being completed on October 20, 2009. The total time from initial inspection to the clearance work was an interval of some five months, allowing the Appellant more than ample opportunity in terms of time available to him to complete the needed brush clearance prior to the clearance work being assigned to a City contractor. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $2412.

240


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009174049 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 NAME: ADRIAN RUDOMIN MAILING ADDRESS: 149 S. BARRINGTON AVE #232 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 SITUS ADDRESS: 9152 JANICE PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4388018022 ASSESSMENT: $2462

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1350 $1112 $2462

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the invoice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing, The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $2462.

241


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009178037 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME : BRANDLIN, JEFFREY E & KAREN MAILING ADDRESS: 2632 WESTRIDGE RD. LOS ANGELES CA 90049-2819 SITUS ADDRESS: 475 BOWLING GREEN WAY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4402031002 ASSESSMENT: $1312

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1112 $1312

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Karen Brandlin appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant states she did not receive notice due to the house that was on the property being moved to Angelino Heights just over one year ago and that she had forwarded her mail and did not realize that the forwarding of mail with the post office had expired. Appellant also expressed concern that for 9 years of her ownership, brush clearance was never an issue. Appellant states that the house that was once on the property was declared by the Cultural Heritage Commission as a historic site and that if any clearance was done it was done by lot cleaning. Appellant states that in three weeks the lot will be closing escrow at a purchase of approximately $1,700,000. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 14, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

242

BRANDLIN, JEFFREY E & KAREN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4402031002 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. There is no record that mail was returned for the first notice. The property was posted with notice after the second reinspection and mail returned in this regards was noted. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Due process was afforded to Appellant. The Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 57.21.07 prohibits hazardous vegetation to exist on parcels of land within the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, the owner is responsible for abatement of any hazards. Furthermore, Appellant is responsible for keeping current and notifying the County Assessor of his mailing address. Appellant is advised to notify the County Assessor of his current address immediately. Appellant is advised to provide her Buyers with a 9A report and inform them of this appeal and that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear. Documentation regarding the 9A report, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential (includes vacant real property located in a zone wherein dwelling units or guest rooms are legally permitted) property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow. Appellant is to give escrow the bill in regards to this appeal for payment and/or to have escrow withhold the amount of the total assessment, for benefit of the Buyer for payment by escrow to the City of Los Angeles so the new Buyers will not be liable for a future lien on the property. The total assessment due is $1,312.

243


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009171013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: GRAHAM, THOMAS I MAILING ADDRESS: 420 ENTRADA DR. SANTA MONICA CA 904021304 SITUS ADDRESS: 420 ENTRADA DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4410002011 ASSESSMENT: $1266

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$240 $1026 $1266

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant elected to contest the Brush Clearance Assessment in writing. In a letter, signed and dated May 21, 2010, Mr. Thomas Ian Graham, (Appellant) wrote in pertinent part that he was appealing the imposition of the assessment. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant stated in his letter that when the City contractors appeared to do the clearance work they were confronted with brush already cleared, and were relegated to waiving their weed whackers around. Appellant characterized the hearing date as being unduly burdensome and inappropriately noticed, stating that the date chosen (including alternate days) coincided with his book tour dates. Appellant added that the red tag notice placed on his front door did not indicate that he needed to contact anyone, and that since he had immediately done the work upon discovery of the tag, present attempts to take money from him were simply unjust.

244

GRAHAM, THOMAS I ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4410002011 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 15, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 8, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported. Appellant provided no documentation aside from his faxed letter – any submitted photographs to show the Appellant had cleared the property, or that he was out of town. According to the Contractor Worksheet, the property owner did no clearance work. The evidence provided by the Department was compelling - the brushes, shrubs, weeds, and grass indicated in the Department and the City contractor photographs displayed an extended loftiness suggesting uninterrupted growth. This lent credence to the Department‟s contention that the conditions posed a very real, immediate, and dangerous hazardous situation that necessitated clearance. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1266.

245


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009171009

COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: MILLAR, GRACE MAILING ADDRESS: 300 CENTRAL PARK W. NEW YORK NY 100241594 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/E OF 320 GRENOLA AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4414022007 ASSESSMENT: $2426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1400 $1026 $2426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant submitted a written appeal. She did not contest the notices and reported that she was not able to accurately direct the gardener and his crew exactly what to clear as to the property. This left her property with volatile brush in need of intervention by the Fire Department to protect the community from the Fire risk. She was provided maps and aerial photographs provided by the Fire Inspector to provide correct instructions to her gardener in the future. She recognizes she did not clear the area as required.


The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 15, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

246

MILLAR, GRACE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4414022007 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property ahs been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department correctly intervened and Followed the proper procedures affording the Appellant due process. The Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs as stated above. The total assessment due is $2426.

247


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009171016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: BADT, JONATHON D AND MICHAEL R MAILING ADDRESS: 8 LATIMER ROAD SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/W OF 17333 CASTELLANNE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4416008013 ASSESSMENT: $1231

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$205 $1026 $1231

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. The Appellant called the Fire Department and wanted to do a written appeal, after waiting adequate time no writing was submitted, therefore, the Appellant is defaulted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 25, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 14, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded

248

BADT, JONATHON D AND MICHAEL R ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4416008013 Page 2 the Appellant, who failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that exited at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1231.

249


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 20, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009171016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: GREEN, DAVID W & ILANA MAILING ADDRESS: 17337 TRAMONTO DR. #308 PACIFIC PLSDS CA 902723152 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACROSS 17616 REVELLO DR. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4416021044 ASSESSMENT: $1231

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$205 $1026 $1231

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that she and her husband Mr. David Green had purchased this property, but denied receipt of the red posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that she believed that the clean-up work her husband had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that she was now separated from her husband, trying to sell the property, and that the imposition of the Assessment constituted a hardship. Appellant provided a copy of her 2009 Form 1040 U. S. Individual Tax Return, which she had filed jointly with her husband.

250

GREEN, DAVID W & ILANA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4416021044 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 25, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 14, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1231.

251


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 10, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009171016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 NAME: GREEN, DAVID W & ILANA MAILING ADDRESS: 17337 TRAMONTO DR. #308 PACIFIC PLSDS CA 902723152 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACROSS 17616 REVELLO ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4416021045 ASSESSMENT: $1271

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$245 $1026 $1271

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that she and her husband Mr. David Green had purchased this property, but denied receipt of the red posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that she believed that the clean-up work her husband had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that she was now separated from her husband, trying to sell the property, and that the imposition of the Assessment constituted a hardship. Appellant provided a copy of her 2009 1040 Individual Tax Return, which she had filed jointly with her husband.

252

GREEN, DAVID W & ILANA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 4416021045 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 25, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 14, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1271

253


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 NAME: HOZAY, EMMITT O MAILING ADDRESS: 4400 DON ZAREMBO DR LOS ANGELES CA 900084119 SITUS ADDRESS: 4400 DON ZAREMBO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5027004013 ASSESSMENT: $1376

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$350 $1026 $1376

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant requests all charges be rescinded as he cleared the property before the City Contractors had a date to clear. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 16, 2009. . PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION As the Appellant cleared the above stated property before the City Contractors had to act, the Fire Department Inspector issued a Cleared by Owner Notice to the Appellant. Therefore, the assessment should be rescinded of all charges. The total assessment due is $00.

254


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 NAME: PICKARD, FLORENCE T TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 6031 SOUTH KINGS RD. LOS ANGELES CA 900561628 SITUS ADDRESS: ALADDIN ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5029016035 ASSESSMENT: $1326

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1026 $1326

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant submitted a letter for the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. The Appellant states that on September 17, 2009 that she received a Notice of Noncompliance and called the Fire Department Inspector and left message. She also calls several Brush Clearance Contractors on the Fire Department‟s website to seek estimates. The Appellant hires Brian Walsh Brush Clearance for $450.00, but does not complete the work. Appellant also state that she made two calls to the Fire Department Inspector but never received a call back DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 20, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 20, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The Fire Department record also indicates a phone conversation with the tenant on Aladdin Street instructing that the top of the hill needed work and that she would inform the owner.

255

PICKARD, FLORENCE T TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5029016035 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than set forth in the Brush Clearance Notice Invoice. The Appellant submitted sufficient and compelling evidence to support this appeal. It is believed that the Appellant acted in good faith. Therefore it is recommended that the Administrative Fee be waived. The total assessment due is $300.00

256


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 NAME: PRESCOTT, ENNIS JR CO TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 5134 VERONICA ST. LOS ANGELES CA 900081123 SITUS ADDRESS: 5134 VERONICA ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5029029006 ASSESSMENT: $1526

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1026 $1526

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. He agreed that he received all the notices including the re-inspection Red Notice in front of his house. His disagreement was the fact that he claimed to have cleared the property but in explaining same, it was quite clear that he is confused about his property lines. The Inspector showed the Appellant a Zima‟s map and explained that his lot is larger than he thought and he is responsible to maintain it throughout the year. He did not disagree, the Fire Department was correct in citing the property and clearing it to abate a serious fire risk. Although the Appellant did do a lot of clearing, he now knows the extent he must keep up in the future. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 20, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 20, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

257

PRESCOTT, ENNIS JR CO TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5029029006 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against you property has been confirmed for an amount less than set forth in the notice the record shows. That the Appellant was afforded due process. The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector Posted the property with the legal notices and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs which clearly depict the dry volatile hazardous condition on the property at the time of clearance. Since the Appellant did clear some of the property but not enough he will be held responsible for the cost of clearance. The total assessment due is $500.

258


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 NAME: OATTS, CHARLES B MAILING ADDRESS: 4131 S. CLOVERDALE AVE LOS ANGELES CA 900081034 SITUS ADDRESS: 4131 S. CLOVERDALE AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5029040007 ASSESSMENT: $1521

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$495 $1026 $1521

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing He agreed that he had received all notices both mailed and posted. . His contention was that he had the property cleaned three weeks prior to the Fire Department having the City Contractor do the clearance‟ and had paid the worker $2,000.00. The Fire Inspector and The City Contractor provided before and after pictures that clearly showed that all of the property had not been cleared by Appellant‟s worker and was a serious fire risk. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued. An F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 31, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 31, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

259

OATTS, CHARLES B ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5029040007 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in a lesser amount than set forth in the notice The Fire Department record shows that all legal notices were properly sent and posted and that the Appellant was afforded due process. Although the Appellant has done a good amount of clearance it was far from complete then it was necessary for The Fire Inspector to have The City Contractor complete the work. The total assessment due is $495.

260


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182030 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: JOHNS, ALTON W MAILING ADDRESS: 2134 BLUEBELL DR. FORNEY, TX 75126 SITUS ADDRESS: 4113 DON DIABLO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5031006014 ASSESSMENT: $1497

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$385 $1112 $1497

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 18, 2010, at 9:30 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 26, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 4, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 4, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

261

JOHNS, ALTON W ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5031006014 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner according to the necessary code requirements to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1497.

262


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009176012 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: SMITH, THOMAS W MAILING ADDRESS: 1622 3/4 S. REDONDO BLVD. LOS ANGELES CA 90019 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L CLOSE TO 1622 ¾ S. REDONDO BLVD. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5209034021 ASSESSMENT: $1276

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$250 $1026 $1276

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

263

SMITH, THOMAS W ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5209034021 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that The Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions, which existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1276.

264


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009176021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: CASTANEDA, ANTHONY MAILING ADDRESS: 928 KENFIELD AVE. LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L CLOSE TO 7321 LENNOX AV ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5214005007 ASSESSMENT: $1412

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$300 $1112 $1412

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 29, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 29, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 21, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

265

CASTANEDA, ANTHONY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5214005007 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Noncompliance invoice, The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a notice to abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1412.

266


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175039 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: BROWNFIELD, MICHAEL L MAILING ADDRESS: 2357 N. INDIANA AVE LOS ANGELES CA 900323622 SITUS ADDRESS: 2357 INDIANA AVENUE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5215005001 ASSESSMENT: $4547

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$3435 $1026 $4547

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing with his Attorney. The Appellant claimed that he did not receive the 1st mailed notice, although it was not returned to the Fire Department. He did admit that he received the 2nd notice and the yellow door and red-posted notices. The Inspector provided photographs of it. He claimed he had the brush clearance work completed, however when the Inspector came to investigate it was not completed. The Inspector contracted a City Contractor who was brush and tree qualified. The Appellant was extremely hostile and argumentative, stating that they had killed his trees. The Appellant stomped out of the hearing room. The Appellant re-entered the hearing room and began his tirade about the Hoarding issue. He contended that there was no such issue, that he had no notice to clear up anything but brush and all the stacks of clutter around was just personal property. He called for the Inspector to come explain what to remove and when the Inspector appeared he yelled for the Inspector to get off of his property. The police had to be called by the Inspector. He again called for another Inspector to define what hoarding and clutter had to be removed and when that Inspector arrived he was screamed at and again the Inspector had to call the police. This time while the police were there he was given time to remove anything that he did not want taken by the City Contractor. At the hearing he yelled at the Hearing Officer and the Inspector that the workers has

267

BROWNFIELD, MICHAEL L ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5215005001 Page 2 taken boxes of personal items (that he was given a chance to remove) and the yelled out that he had been raped by the City. The Appellants attorney kept saying that the Appellant had no specific notice as to any Hoarding issue and it was not written out on the posted notice so any due process at least to the Hoarding issue. Interestingly enough the Master Parcel Information Sheet which the Appellant indeed did receive states under Los Angeles City Fire Code 57.21.03 Housekeeping: MAINTAIN ALL BUILDINGS OR PORTIONS OF BUILDINGS IN A NEAT ORDERLY MANNER FREE FROM ANY CONDITION THAT WOULD CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE TO A FIRE LIFE SAFETY HAZARD. REMOVE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS AND ABANDONED CARS. FINAL NOTICE, INCLUDING DEAD OVERGROWN BAMBOO. REMOVE PINE NEEDLES OFF OF ROOF. This notice was stapled to the Appellant‟s appeal form when it arrived in the Fire Department office to set his appeal date


The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that the Appellant was afforded due process. In addition the Appellant even sent the notice in stapled to his appeal form. The record further reflects that The Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous brush, tree and hoarding conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $4547.

268


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009176009 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: GOMEZ, DELRINA MAILING ADDRESS: 2561 MALLORY ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90032 SITUS ADDRESS: 2561 MALLORY ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5216009036 ASSESSMENT: $1826

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$800 $1026 $1826

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. She called in and stated she received the hearing date notice to late and was given time to mail in Title paperwork. The escrow papers show that she received tax and 9A notices and is therefore responsible for the paperwork she sent in the 2009 Brush Clearance lien is in her packet. And she closed escrow with the knowledge she would have to pay the assessment. The Fire Department was correct in abating the very serious fire hazard on the property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on May 28, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 25, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 21, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows that due

269

GOMEZ, DELRINA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5216009036 Page 2 process was afforded the owner of the property. The record further shows that the Fire inspector posted the property with a Notice to abate a public nuisance and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. Since the lien was on the property at the time the Appellant closed escrow, it is now her responsibility. The total assessment due is $1826.

270


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009176011 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: WENDY SAURI MAILING ADDRESS: 522 CHESTNUT AVE. APT. #4 LOS ANGELES CA 90042 SITUS ADDRESS: 5101 DARTMOUTH AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90032 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5216017014 ASSESSMENT: $1201

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$175 $1026 $1201

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 22, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 22, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

271

WENDY SAURI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5216017014 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the brush Clearance invoice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant. The Fire Department record shows that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard after the property remained out of compliance with the Brush Clearance Ordinance. LAFD record shows no mail was returned and that a supplemental address was not ascertained for the new owner until February 25, 2010. Appellant did send in a copy of a canceled escrow wherein Wendy M. Cubillos is noted as seller along with the California Association of Realtors Short Sale Listing Addendum on the property dated September 20, 2009, where in Wendy M. Cubillos is noted as Seller. Appellants 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Form is handwritten and signed noting Wendy Sauri (Wendy Cubillos) as Appellant. LAFD Inspector stated that had the Appellant paid $70.20 for a 9A report for her Buyer she would have seen that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear on July 11, 2003, August 8, 2003 and July 21, 2009. Documentation regarding the 9A reports, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow. It is recommended that the Fire Department send a copy of the final assessment to Appellant, Wendy Sauri at 522 Chestnut Ave. Apt. #4. Los Angeles, CA 90042 and to Owner per County Assessor as of May 5, 2010, Manuel Acosta at 5101 Dartmouth Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90032. The total assessment due is $1,201.

272


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182024 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: ANGELA WOOD MAILING ADDRESS: 1501 EWING ST. LOS ANGELES CA 900261913 SITUS ADDRESS: EWING ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5420037022 ASSESSMENT: $1466

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$440 $1026 $1466

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 18, 2010 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 20, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 19, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 19, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 29, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

273

ANGELA WOOD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5420037022 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,466.

274


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: HARRIS, LAURIE MAILING ADDRESS: 1850 EAST LAS TUNAS SANTA BARBARA 93103 SITUS ADDRESS: 3530 CARNATION AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5429029029 ASSESSMENT: $1466

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$440 $1026 $1466

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and she failed to attend the scheduled hearing. There is no record that mail was returned to the Fire Department. The Fire Department Inspector posted the

275

HARRIS, LAURIE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5429029029 Page 2 Property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Attached to Appellants request for Appeal was a printout of an email to the fire department from Adam Kassoff ([email protected]) stating that he no longer owns or occupies the property and that it was sold to a new owner in March of 2009. It should be noted that title records as of today only show Appellant as owner of this property since July 5, 2006. The total assessment due is $1,466.

mailto:[email protected]

276


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179025 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: TEBELEKIAN, MISAK & TAKUHI MAILING ADDRESS: 1421 CORONA DR. GLENDALE CA 91205-3705 SITUS ADDRESS: 4003 SUNSET DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5430023029 ASSESSMENT: $1466

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$440 $1026 $1466

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Levon Misak Tebellekian appeared on behalf of his father, Appellant Misak Tevelekian with his friend, Jack Kechichian an attorney. Appellant‟s son stated that the family travels quite a bit out of the country and did not receive any of the notices for this 9-unit apartment complex. He presented Exhibit A declaration from his tenant, Richard Herbeck whom acts as a manager liaison when Appellant is out of town. Mr. Herbeck stated he never viewed a posted notice on the property. Appellant‟s son stated that weekly on Thursdays; his gardener attends to the property. Exhibit B is a declaration from Efren Torres, the gardener that states he never observed notice posted on the property. Exhibit C present by Appellant‟s son is a picture of the back cement wall on the property, which depicts a metal fence. Appellant stated that the City Contractor cleared property Appellant does not owned which is between the cement wall and the fence, and further stated that a tree on the other side of the property was also cleared which is not on his property. He has requested that the administrative fees be waived and that he not pay for any work completed on his neighbors property due to the fact that it is not his responsibility and also stated that had he had enough notice he could have diligently complied by having his gardener complete the work.

277

TEBELEKIAN, MISAK & TAKUHI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5430023029 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 3, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 57.21.07 provides that “the costs of removal or other elimination or abatement of a nuisance from in front of or on a parcel of land shall constitute a special assessment against that parcel.” Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor and to give the Fire Department a supplemental address to insure notices are received when he is traveling out of town. The total assessment due is $1,466.

278


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: COBB, HOSEA MAILING ADDRESS: 1871 W. SILVERLAKE DR. LOS ANGELES CA 900261347 SITUS ADDRESS: 1871 SILVER LAKE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5431037020 ASSESSMENT: $1712

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$600 $1112 $1712

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 18, 2010, at 1:00 PM. In a signed but undated “To Whom It May Concern” letter, Appellant stated that she believed that the City was placing the assessment as a revenue source, and she was on Social Security with a fixed income of $600.00 per month. Appellant provided no further evidence. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of July 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on November 4, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on November 4, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 20, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

279

COBB, HOSEA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5431037020 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1712.

280


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182022 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: HASHIBA, CHAN CHARISE MAILING ADDRESS: 2670 LOCKSLEY PL. LOS ANGELES CA 900392742 SITUS ADDRESS: 2670 LOCKSLEY PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5438017016 ASSESSMENT: $1401

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$375 $1026 $1401

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing and stated that he had no issues as to the City Contractor clearing the property. He did contact the gardener and requested that the brush be cleared; however, the work was never done. At the same time his father died leaving his devastated. Within approximately a month he lost his job as an independent contractor with the Los Angeles Unified School District. He has not been able to find work for over a year and when he filed for unemployment compensation he was denied as his stature as independent contractor prevents his receiving said funds. He submitted records of the above as proof of extreme hardship. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 5, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 5, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 29, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

281

HASHIBA, CHAN CHARISE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5438017016 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less that that set forth in the notice. The Fire Inspector correctly followed Fire Department procedure with all notices and posting affording the Appellant due process, then having the violations cleared by the City Contractor, thus abating the public Nuisance and Fire Hazard in the community. Recommendation The Administration fee is waived due to the Appellants extreme hardship and his submitted proof thereof, however, the Appellant is responsible for the Cost of Clearance in the amount of $375.00. The total assessment due is $375.

282


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182020 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: CHANEY, DAVID D MAILING ADDRESS: 2454 VALENTINE ST LOS ANGELES CA 90026-6205 SITUS ADDRESS: 2450 VALENTINE ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5443022003 ASSESSMENT: $1821

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$795 $1026 $1821

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, David Chaney appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant states that he personally cleared the property by hand in 2009 which is approximately 4.5 acres and that he knows brush clearance is an ongoing responsibility that he tries to manage on the property. Appellant showed proof that he was discharged a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in August of 2009. Appellant states he is currently $60,000 in arrears for his property taxes, barely breaking even on the amounts of rent collected on the property after taking into consideration the taxes and insurance owed monthly on the property. Appellant has asked for financial hardship consideration with respect to the administrative fees and has stated that he is able to pay for the brush clearance costs of $795.00 and is desperately trying to keep current on his other financial responsibilities with respect to the property. Appellant further stated that he lost his home at 828 N. Dillon St., in Los Angeles, CA 90026 and did not receive the notices, which were sent there. Appellant stated that upon a neighbor notifying him that brush clearers were on his property he proceeded to contact the Fire Department via fax on September 25, 2009, concerned that he had cleared the property and was confused on what needed to be done, questioning why the clearers were at his property and stated that he never heard back from anyone. Appellant currently lives at this property. Appellant stated the brush clearers were only at his property for 2 hours and that

283

CHANEY, DAVID D ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5443022003 Page 2 Some equipment of the brush clearers was left on his property. Upon returning the equipment to the brush clearer Appellant was told that the clearer did state his property was clear and was told to clear it again. Appellant stated that this comment and that the obvious fact that 2 hours to clear a 4.5 acre property show that he was in compliance for a majority of the property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 27, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 27, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 8, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The noncompliance fee of $300 is a separate written appeal and this decision does not include that appeal. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Property inspection is the ongoing responsibility of the property owner which Appellant clearly understands and has demonstrated a good faith attempt to fulfill his brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant understands that if vegetation re-growth occurs an owner may be required to perform additional brush clearance. The intent of the Bankruptcy upon discharge of debtors is to give the debtor a fresh start. Appellant has been discharged in Bankruptcy. Appellant has demonstrated some financial hardship. The total assessment due is $895.

284


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182029 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: LIN, FREDERICK T CO TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 1572 DIABLE PT. CT CHULA VISTA CA 919116108 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5443022006 ASSESSMENT: $1312

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1112 $1312

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The Appellant at the hearing also reviewed the “Zimas Intranet” map. Appellant stated that he did not receive the red posted notice, or Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails. Appellant on June 13, 2009, received an invoice for cleaning on his lot submitted to him by Guzman Gardening Service for $550.00, and Appellant believed that the clean-up work he paid for was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant on October 13, 2009, received a Notice to Clean from the Department of Public Works to perform brush clearance. On November 17, 2009, that Department‟s Lot Cleaning Division sent Appellant a letter finding that he was not the owner of Lot # 5443-022-005 (an adjoining parcel) and the Notice to Clean had been withdrawn. Appellant then forwarded copies to this Department along With photographs, stating that he believed that the Department should have issued him with a letter of withdrawal a letter similar to the one he received from

285

LIN, FREDERICK T CO TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5443022006 Page 2 Public Works. Appellant believed that his photographs show that the grass grew longer on the two parcels adjacent to his “proving” that he had been in compliance on his parcel all along. These photographs Appellant said he took on January 31, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 16, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 17, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. According to the Department Inspector, it appears that the brush growth that occurred on the Appellant‟s property had been “re-growth” after the rainy season and six months elapsed, necessitating further clean up subsequent to his initial June 2009 clearance. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1312.

286


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: TABONE, DEREK L MAILING ADDRESS: 6454 VAN NUYS BLVD. #210 VAN NUYS CA 914011445 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L BEHIND 3920 WEST POINT DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451020009 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant; Appellant and property received notices. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard.

287

TABONE, DEREK L ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451020009 Page 2 Appellant failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Inspector provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The City Contractor pictures and itemized bill was not presented to this Hearing Officer. Office Comments note that Appellant‟s wife contacted the department for clarification on July 14, 2009, and stated she would clear the property the next day. On July 27, 2009, after City Contractor finished clearing the property, Appellant‟s wife called again to state that Appellant did clear 80% of the work when contractor arrived and also stated that the contractor stole her tools. The total assessment due is $1,176.

288


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: SALTZBURG INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP MAILING ADDRESS: 24025 PARK SORRENTO STE. #150 CALABASAS 91302 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 295' SW/OF 3881 WEST POINT DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022008 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear or send a written appeal for the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Department Inspector

289

SALTZBURG INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022008 Page 2 Posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1176.

290


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: SHAW REALTY HOLDINGS MAILING ADDRESS: 2103 NO. HOBART BLVD. LOS ANGELES CA 900271002 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/W OF 3911 WEST POINT PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022009 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear or send a written appeal for the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Department Inspector

291

SHAW REALTY HOLDINGS ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022009 Page 2 Posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1,176.

292


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: DON WALTON MAILING ADDRESS: 1741 N. TAMARIND AVE COMPTON CA 902213666 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/W CORNER GLENALBYN DR & MONTENCOST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022033 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing He claimed he had no notice of the citing of Brush clearance on the property. However the property was recorded 3 months prior to any notice mailed to the property, the re-inspection notice was legally posted approximately 5 months after this property was recorded. The Appellant agrees to pay for the cost of clearance, but requests the administrative fee waived, as he did not receive any notices. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

293

DON WALTON ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022033 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than set forth in the notice. Although the Appellant took possession 3 months prior to the notices being sent. The notices were sent to the previous owner. There appeared to be a delay in the recording of the new owner and mailing address by the County Assessor‟s office. Therefore the Appellant was not afforded due process. The total assessment due is $150.

294


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: DON WALTON MAILING ADDRESS: 1741 N. TAMARIND AVE COMPTON CA 902213666 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACROSS 3790 GLENALBYN DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022034 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing He claimed he had no notice of the citing of Brush clearance on the property. However the property was recorded 1 month prior to the reinspection notice. The re-inspection notice was legally posted approximately after this property was recorded. The Appellant agrees to pay for the cost of clearance, but requests the administrative fee be waived, as he did not receive any notices. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

295

DON WALTON ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451022034 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than set forth in the notice. Although the Appellant took possession of the property one month prior to the notices being sent. The notices were sent to the previous owner. There appeared to be a delay in the recording of the new owner and mailing address by the County Assessor‟s office. Therefore the Appellant was not afforded due process. The total assessment due is $150.

296


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN MAILING ADDRESS: 2430 FLORENCE AVE ARCADIA, CA 910078328 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L BEHIND 460 W. AVE 37 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451024022 ASSESSMENT: $1912

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$800 $1112 $1912

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Heating for this parcel and two other parcels. Appellant stated that he always clears his property and in 2009 he did so in early spring and stated that he did not receive notice and no opportunity to comply in a reasonable amount of time. Appellant states that he needed more communication with Inspector in that he emailed him numerous times for clarification and is still unclear on what brush needed to be cleared. Appellant produced cancelled checks for the amounts he paid for brush clearance, which was completed and stated he tried on at least 2 occasions to comply with Inspector.


The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

297

SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451024022 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The Fire Department record does not reflect any mail was returned. Due process was afforded to Appellant. The record is not noted however the file does show on parcel 24 that mail was returned for the second notice on November 5, 2009. There are numerous emails between Inspector and Appellant that are not documented in the file comments, though confirmed by Inspector whom provided a printout of the email communication. Inspector extended the time to comply for Appellant, though Appellants brush clearance attempts did not comply The Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 57.21.07 prohibits hazardous vegetation to exist on parcels of land within the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, the owner is responsible for abatement of any hazards. Furthermore, Appellant is responsible for keeping current and notifying the County Assessor of his mailing address. Appellant had knowledge of Fire Department noncompliance and had opportunity to contact the fire department to discuss violations. Therefore, it is recommended that the Appellant pay the total assessment due of $1912. The total assessment due is $1912.

298


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN MAILING ADDRESS: 2430 FLORENCE AVE ARCADIA, CA 910078328 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L BEHIND 460 W. AVE 37 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451024023 ASSESSMENT: $1912

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$800 $1112 $1912

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Heating for this parcel and two other parcels. Appellant stated that he always clears his property and in 2009 he did so in early spring and stated that he did not receive notice and no opportunity to comply in a reasonable amount of time. Appellant states that he needed more communication with Inspector in that he emailed him numerous times for clarification and is still unclear on what brush needed to be cleared. Appellant produced cancelled checks for the amounts he paid for brush clearance, which was completed and stated he tried on at least 2 occasions to comply with Inspector. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

299


300


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: SHENTU, EUGENE & CHUAN MAILING ADDRESS: 2430 FLORENCE AVE : ARCADIA, CA 910078328 SITUS ADDRESS V/L BEHIND 460 W. AVE 37 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5451024024 ASSESSMENT: $1912

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$800 $1112 $1912

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Heating for this parcel and two other parcels. Appellant stated that he always clears his property and in 2009 he did so in early spring and stated that he did not receive notice and no opportunity to comply in a reasonable amount of time. Appellant states that he needed more communication with Inspector in that he emailed him numerous times for clarification and is still unclear on what brush needed to be cleared. Appellant produced cancelled checks for the amounts he paid for brush clearance, which was completed and stated he tried on at least 2 occasions to comply with Inspector. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

301


302


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: MARIA C. OROZCO MAILING ADDRESS: 11804 SAMOLINE AVE. DOWNEY,CA 90241 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452001003 ASSESSMENT: $1121

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$95 $1026 $1121

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing and did not contest the notices. She did not see the re-inspection notice as she had surgery that tumors in her eye and was not able to go to the property. She did agree the Red re-inspection notice was properly posted upon the property seeing the Fire Inspectors pictures, including the before and after clearance pictures taken by the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor. The Appellant agrees she should pay the Cost of Clearance fee, but requests a waiver of the Administrative fee and that the family is having extreme hardship in caring both physically and financially for a daughter who was returned home very seriously injured from service the U.S Military. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on August 8, 2009. There was record of an F-1307 Cleaned by owner inspection report on file. Therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the Condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

303

MARIA C. OROZCO ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452001003 Page 2


The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed for an amount less than set forth in the notice. The Fire Department was correct in intervening and following the property procedures to remove this volatile Fire Hazard from this property and the community. The Fire Department record shows that that due process was afforded the Appellant, however due to extreme hardship it is recommended that the Appellant pay The Cost of Clearance and that the Administrative fee be rescinded. The total assessment due is $95.

304


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175005 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: KETSOYAN, VARDUI MAILING ADDRESS: 13126 CANTARA ST. NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 916051049 SITUS ADDRESS: 154.086' N OF 435 BEECH ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452011018 ASSESSMENT: $1436

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$410 $1026 $1436

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 12, 2010, at 2:30 PM. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant acknowledged receipt of the red-posted notice, as well as the Notification notices that was sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he believed that the property in question was small, and that he had hired somebody to clear the property up to the telephone pole. The Appellant stated that he could not “recognize” the trees that were shown in the Department‟s photographs. Appellant provided a photograph depicting the property cleared to the street, which he stated were taken in early May of 2009.

305

KETSOYAN, VARDUI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452011018 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on May 27, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on May 27, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 1, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner according to the necessary code requirements to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had contracted for and had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported by any of the proffered documentation submitted as evidence. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1436.

306


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175005 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: KETSOYAN, VARDUI MAILING ADDRESS: 13126 CANTARA ST. NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 916051049 SITUS ADDRESS: 203.236' N OF 435 BEECH ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452011019 ASSESSMENT: $1536

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$510 $1026 $1536

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant acknowledged receipt of the red-posted notice, as well as the Notification notices that was sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that he believed that the property in question was small, and that he had hired somebody to clear the property up to the telephone pole. The Appellant stated that he could not “recognize” the trees that were shown in the Department‟s photographs. Appellant provided a photograph depicting the property cleared to the street, which he stated were taken in early May of 2009.

307

KETSOYAN, VARDUI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452011019 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on May 27, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on May 27, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 1, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had contracted for and had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported by any of the proffered documentation submitted as evidence. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1536.

308


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175020 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: JOHNSTONE, DARIN R & LORA D MAILING ADDRESS: 1222 KIPLING AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90041-1515 SITUS ADDRESS: 197.73' S OF 3570 GLENALBYN DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452012015 ASSESSMENT: $1691

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$665 $1026 $1691

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 13, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 30, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance invoice. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s

309

JOHNSTONE, DARIN R & LORA D ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452012015 Page 2 address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1,691

310


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175020 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: DELAO, GENARO MAILING ADDRESS: 460 VISTA GLORIOSA DR. LOS ANGELES CA 900652527 SITUS ADDRESS: VISTA GLORIOSA DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452013006 ASSESSMENT: $1216

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$190 $1026 $1216

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. The Appellant agreed that they received the notices. His complaint was that he did not understand why he had to cut and trim trees in front of his house as the DWP had cut back the trees from the utility lines and he felt that was all that was needed. It was pointed out to him on the Fire Inspectors red re-inspection notice, which was clearly readable in the Inspectors photographs that it stated that the trees were a hazard to Fire Department Emergency Vehicles, which could not access through the street in the event of an emergency. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 2, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

311

DELAO, GENARO ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452013006 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record shows the Appellant was afforded due process. The Fire Inspector mailed and posted the proper legal notices as stated above. The Fire Department correctly intervened in this case to secure the clearance for Fire Department Emergency Vehicles to access for necessary emergencies also the photographs provided before and after the clearance clearly showed that the action was urgent and necessary. The total assessment due is $1216.

312


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175012 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: SIMZAR, BAHRAM MAILING ADDRESS: 928 KENFIELD AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90049 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 715 & 705 ISABEL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452016028 ASSESSMENT: $1196

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$170 $1026 $1196

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 12, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1,196.

313


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175020 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: RAUDA, DELIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 65891 LOS ANGELES CA 900650891 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 3589 GLENALBYN DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452018032 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. She did not contest that she had received the notices, but she claimed that she had two different workers clear the lot at different times, however she provided no dates and produced no photographs after they were said to have completed the clearance. The one worker stated in writing that he had completely cleared the property on August 23, 2009. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 30, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

314

RAUDA, DELIA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5452018032 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded. The Appellant, as all notices were properly and legally sent and posted as stated above the City Contractor photographs indeed proved that the Fire Department correctly intervened to protect said property and prevent a very serious hazard in the community that existed at the time of the clearance. The Appellant was advised to seek a licensed surveyor the accurate boundaries of her two lots. The total assessment due is $1176.

315


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: LUBOWICZ, LEO MAILING ADDRESS: 308 FAIRWAY BLVD PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL 32407 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF 3516 TACOMA AV ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454013016 ASSESSMENT: $1771

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$745 $1026 $1771

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. ARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 8, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1771.

316


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: BURTON, BRIAN J MAILING ADDRESS: 1917 HILLHURST AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90027 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 95' W/O 940 W/ AVE. 37 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454018011 ASSESSMENT: $1256

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$230 $1026 $1256

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 30, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous condition, which existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1256.

317


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175027 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: MOORE, LUCILE TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 58 SHAMROCK CIR. SANTA ROSA CA 954031183 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454020017 ASSESSMENT: $1126

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$100 $1026 $1126

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant elected to contest the Brush Clearance Assessment in writing. In a letter, signed and dated May 11, 2009, Ms. Cheryl Wallace (Appellant) wrote in pertinent part that she was appealing the imposition of the assessment on behalf of her 88-year old grandmother, Ms. Lucile Moore. Appellant stated that she believed that her grandmother did not receive any of the Official Notification letters that were sent to her through the mails, and stated that she believed that the clean-up work her grandmother had a clearance contractor perform was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that the Assessment was a hardship, and submitted her grandmother‟s Form 1040 U. S. Individual Tax Return for 2009, as well as a Bank Account Summary statement as the documentation to substantiate her grandmother‟s claim in this regard, and requesting a waiver of the fees. According to the submitted paperwork, Ms. Moore had submitted to the Fire Department a check for One Hundred Dollars on January 30, 2010.

318

MOORE, LUCILE TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454020017 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on August 7, 2009, with a compliance due date of September 16, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 1, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. Department records also indicate a phone call on September 29, 2009, referencing Appellant‟s contention that her property is more that 200-foot from any building and that there are no trees on the property. The Contractor Worksheet indicates that there was no visible clearance work that had been performed. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. The hardship was considered and the proper weight attached to the documents as presented. Therefore, the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Administrative fee be waive only. The total assessment due is $100.

319


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: GONZALEZ, JULIA R & MYRNA MAILING ADDRESS: 4930 ALDAMA ST LOS ANGELES CA 900423113 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454020043 ASSESSMENT: $1237

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1112 $1237

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 13, 2010, at 2:30 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on August 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

320

GONZALEZ, JULIA R & MYRNA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454020043 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1237.

321


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: WONG, JOHNNY C MAILING ADDRESS: 112 N. AVENUE 66 APT. #16 LOS ANGELES CA 900422977 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454020044 ASSESSMENT: $1272

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$160 $1112 $1272

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant acknowledged receipt of the Notification notices that was sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant provided a hand-drawn map, which indicated in his opinion that he had cleared more area on and around the vacant lot than he believed that he needed to be in compliance with fire safety standards. In a letter signed and dated January 28, 2010, Appellant stated that he did cut and clear his property, and that he objected to the imposition of the fees and charges.

322

WONG, JOHNNY C ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454020044 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on August 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 8, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 8, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 22, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1272.

323


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175035 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: BAHRAM SIMZAR MAILING ADDRESS: 928 KENFIELD AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90049 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 3641 ALTAMONT ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454021015 ASSESSMENT: $1312

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1112 $1312

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on September 9, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 6, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire

324

BAHRAM SIMZAR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5454021015 Page 2 Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Title records indicate that on October 13, 2009, a transfer between Sellers, Abtah Khosrow to Appellant as buyer was recorded. LAFD Inspector stated that had the Appellant paid $70.20 for a 9A report he would have seen that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear on June 19, 2009, and July 2, 2009. Documentation regarding the 9A report, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential (includes vacant real property located in a zone wherein dwelling units or guest rooms are legally permitted) property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow. The total assessment due is $1,312.

325

`REPORT AND PROPOSED DECISION ON ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR

2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: KAREN S. PATON MAILING ADDRESS: 1213 EL PASO DR LOS ANGELES, CA 900654324 SITUS ADDRESS: 3877 AGUILAR ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5459023007 ASSESSMENT: $1201

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$175 $1026 $1201

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on April 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 19, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 19, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1201.

326


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182010 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: DR. GILBERT VARELA MAILING ADDRESS: 2752 AVENIDA SIMI SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 SITUS ADDRESS: 2525 SUNDOWN DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462001030 ASSESSMENT: $1181

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$155 $1026 $1181

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Jose Pascual, Realtor appeared on behalf of Appellant Dr. Varela, aka Cazador Enterprises, LLC. Mr. Pascual states that he is the property manager for this property, which was vacant from January 2009 until tenant occupied on June 15, 2010. Mr. Pascual stated that Appellant never received any notice of Noncompliance until he received a notice of billing at his business address in January 2010 and did not know he was not in compliance. Mr. Pascual further stated Appellant has complied every year since he took ownership and therefore requests that the administrative fees be waived since there was no time to complete brush clearance. Mr. Pascual states that his realtor signs have been taken from the property and that there is high gang activity in the area and possibly the posted notices were taken or blown away by the wind since the property is in a high wind area. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 17, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

327

DR. GILBERT VARELA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462001030 Page 2 Completed on August 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant in regards to the notices posted on the property. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The record does not reflect any communication with the Appellant and the Fire Department until after the billing was received sometime in January 2010. The documentation from the Fire Department does not show where the First Notice on Noncompliance was mailed and to whom. The First notice printed from the system shows a blank address. Appellant‟s business address is so noted in the first supplemental address entered on July 31, 2009 after mailing of the second Notice of Noncompliance. Mr. Varela further states that he visited the property on numerous occasions in the month of May and June 2009 and that the tenants moved into the property on June 15, 2009 and no notices were posted or mail received in regards to brush noncompliance. Mr. Varela states had there been adequate notice, there would have been adequate time to comply. It is recommended that Appellant keep current his mailing address with the County Assessor. Fire Department records to be updated to reflect the mailing address for Appellant to be Cazador Enterprises, LLC c/o Gilbert Varela 5322 E. Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90022 and to also send notices and this hearing decision to his property manager Jose Pascual at 2752 Avenida Simi, Simi Valley, CA 93065. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is $881.

328


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: MONTGOMERY, ELIZABETH MAILING ADDRESS: 11330 WILBUR AVE. PORTER RANCH CA 913261844 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 2552 HINES DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462003023 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant‟s brother, Marshall Montgomery appeared on her behalf in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Mr. Montgomery maintains the property and has pulled permits to begin building a residence on the property. Mr. Montgomery states he has always paid to clear the property, and believes he has complied in good faith. Mr. Montgomery stated this year his neighbor informed him that there was illegal dumpling of brush on the upper portion. Mr. Montgomery states that this part of the property is difficult to access and not viewable from the street. Upon receiving the First Notice of Noncompliance Mr. Montgomery personally visited the property and did not notice any brush and viewed the property to be in a cleaned state. His neighbor also had informed him that he would remove the brush he dumped. He further states that had he known there was noncompliance brush issue he would have immediately contacted his gardener to take care of any further brush removal. He also states that he believes he is being responsible for brush on the hard to access portion of the property that is on a paper road, not part of his property, and a portion of this responsibility should be attributed to his neighbor and that the Fire Department should have billed his neighbor their share of the brush removal cost.

329

MONTGOMERY, ELIZABETH ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462003023 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 10, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 10, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 29, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Inspector noted that he was about to give an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report to Appellant, however, he was approached by a man while he was at the property whom informed him to take a look at the top of the property for additional brush that needed to be cleared. The Fire Inspector proceeded with the Notice of Noncompliance at that time. The pictures presented by the Fire department illustrate a cleaned parcel with some brush that may be the responsibility of the upper neighbor. It is equitable for Appellant not to pay for the brush clearing cost that could be attributable to his neighbor, approximately a quarter of the cost billed to Appellant. Appellant, although not completely in compliance has acted in good faith in an attempt to comply with their brush clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is $725.50.

330


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182013 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: YAGHOUB AYNEHCHI MAILING ADDRESS: 204 S. OAKHURST BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L EAST OF 3746 BRILLIANT DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462004005 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Yaghoub Aynehchi appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Appellant stated that he just purchased the property from the County Tax Assessor in February of 2009. He said he tried to visit the property though it has no road access. He further stated he did not receive any notice regarding noncompliance with brush clearing. He showed an invoice with the name of Giraldo, Fransini. Appellant also presented an Annual Property Tax Bill showing brush removal liens on the property for the 2008 liens in the amount of $1,676.00 that he paid and would like taken into consideration since he purchased the property without knowledge of the liens. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 2, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 2, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 18, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

331

YAGHOUB AYNEHCHI ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462004005 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant in regards to the notices posted on the property. However, Fire Department records do show mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The record does not reflect any communication with the Appellant and the Fire Department until after the billing was received sometime in March 2010. Had the Appellant paid $70.20 for a 9A report he would have seen that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear. Documentation regarding the 9A report, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential (includes vacant real property located in a zone wherein dwelling units or guest rooms are legally permitted) property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow. This information would have alerted the buyer as to potential liens against the property. Appellant became the new record owner within a few weeks of the first notice of noncompliance that he did not receive. There is no direct road access, though Appellant attempted to locate the property. It is recommended that Appellant keep current his mailing address with the County Assessor. Fire Department records to be updated to reflect the mailing address for Appellant. It is suggested that Appellant have the property professionally surveyed and to post his property accordingly for identification. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is $876.

332


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182005 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: JONES, ARTIS MAILING ADDRESS: 1201 ISLETON PLACE #1 OXNARD, CA 93030 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 2100 BLK MOSS AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462009013 ASSESSMENT: $1248

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$222 $1026 $1248

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Jasper Williams, daughter of deceased Appellant, Artis Jones appeared on his behalf in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Ms. Williams stated that her father, Appellant, died in November 2009 and that prior to that he suffered from mental and physical infirmities and was in and out of the hospital and also had the onset of Alzheimer‟s disease. Ms. Williams stated that her dad was in his 90‟s when he died and on a fixed income of social security. She stated that the $222.00 for the brush clearance has already been paid. Ms. Williams stated that her sister Audrey Hones Coleman who had recently moved in with her dad before his death just became aware of his bills. She requested that the fees be waived due to financial hardship and that this would have been his food money since her sister supplemented his income. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 4, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on May 22, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on May 22, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

333

JONES, ARTIS ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462009013 Page 2 Completed on July 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The record does not reflect any communication with the Appellant and the Fire Department Financial hardship was presented. It is recommended that Appellant‟s daughters become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant is advised to keep their mailing address current with the County Assessor. The total assessment due is $222.

334


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: SAVAGE LIGHTHOUSE, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 241 CORAL SHORES CAPE NE CALGARY ALBERTA, CANADA T3J3T8 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 3642 PARRISH AV ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462010010 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant presented a written appeal in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Appellant states that they purchased the property in February 2009 and currently reside in Canada. Appellant states they did not receive adequate notice for being noncompliance in brush removal and have never been informed that they had an outstanding brush-clearing problem and are willing to pay the $150.00 cost of clearance for 2009. They ask that the non-compliance $300 and administrative fees be waived since they were never advised such a deficiency existed. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 29, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 3, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 3, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 29, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

335

SAVAGE LIGHTHOUSE, LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462010010 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The noncompliance fee of $300 is a separate written appeal and this decision does not include that appeal. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant with respect to the posting. There is a record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. It is recommended that Appellant keep current his mailing address with the County Assessor. Owner name is reflected in the Fire Department records to be American Home Loan Express 4647 Long Beach Blvd. B4, Long Beach CA 90805 and the current title records show a James Connell, 937 Robinson, and Los Angeles, CA 90026 on the records. Fire Department records to be updated to reflect the mailing address for Appellant in Canada as so noted on his appeal. It is suggested that Appellant have the property professionally surveyed and to post his property accordingly for boundary identification. Property inspection is the ongoing responsibility of the property owner and it is suggested that the owner contract with someone locally to periodically visually inspect his property for compliance. It should be noted that it is clear that if vegetation re-growth occurs an owner may be required to perform additional brush clearance. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is $876.

336


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182009 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: ZHAO, JOY MAILING ADDRESS: 6 HAMPSTEAD RD, SANDRINGHAM AUCKLAND, NZ 1025 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF PARRISH AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462010029 ASSESSMENT: $1216

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$190 $1026 $1216

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant submitted a written appeal in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Appellant states that the F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance was not received and that the Appellant resides overseas. Appellant first contacted the Fire Department upon receiving the billing statement. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIN The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice.

337

ZHAO, JOY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462010029 Page 2 The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant is advised to keep a current mailing address on file with the County Assessor. The total assessment due is $1,216.

338


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 13 NAME: BARRIONUEVO, MARTHA O MAILING ADDRESS: 3537 DIVISION ST. LOS ANGELES CA 90065-3301 SITUS ADDRESS: 3537 DIVISION ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462028014 ASSESSMENT: $1297

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$185 $1112 $1297

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Martha O, Barrionuevo appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant is requesting a hardship waiver, as she is unemployed, very close to filing bankruptcy and has no financial means of paying the assessment. Appellant submitted Exhibit A, proof of a mortgage loan modification received by her Bank. She did state that she does have a gardener that has cleared the property for the past 15 years and has never had any violations. Appellant states due to her financial situation her gardener is not charging her right now. Appellant stated she did not receive notice that she was not in compliance with her brush clearance responsibilities and would have given the notice immediate attention since she too is concerned of any hazardous situation on her only property. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 1, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 31, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 31, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 13, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

339

BARRIONUEVO, MARTHA O ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5462028014 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. There is no record that mail was returned. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. City Contractor notes no work completed by the owner. Contractor worksheet shows some work completed by owner. Hardship evidence was presented along with a good faith attempt by Appellant to comply with brush his clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is 185.

340


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: ALEX JIMENEZ MAILING ADDRESS: 12981 RAMONA BLVD. SUITE D IRWINDALE, CA 91706 SITUS ADDRESS: VL SW OF 858 GANYMEDE ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001037 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant stated that this property is part of a group of properties he owns jointly with Mr. Henry Melendez, and that he never received any notification letter, only an invoice. Appellant added that he went on-line onto the County Assessor‟s website and in both September of 2009 and again in January of 2010 updated the property owner address information. The Appellant felt that the imposition of Administrative fees was a financial burden, but provided no documentation at the hearing. The Appellant was asked to fax any relevant information for consideration. Appellant did fax in his 2009 1040, which was considered in making the recommendation. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

341

ALEX JIMENEZ ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001037 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. At the hearing the Appellant did state that the “Property Owner‟s Address” as reflected in the County Assessor‟s record of 816 Ganymede Drive, Los Angeles, California 90065 was the address of a vacant lot. The Department records do indicate that the first notification mail was returned, but as the Appellant indicated that address that he and his business partner placed on record was to a vacant lot where mail delivery was impossible. In addition, the Appellant did have a business partner who co-owned the property with him, and the Appellant did state that he works as a realtor. The Appellant stated at the hearing that he did in fact change the address on record with the County Assessor‟s Office, but provided no proof of this, and any address change would have taken effect after the fact, when the brush clearance had already been completed. Property owners do in fact have an ongoing duty to inspect their properties and remove hazardous conditions thereon. The fact that the property was a distance to drive to would not excuse the duty. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1176.

342


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: ALEX JIMENEZ MAILING ADDRESS: 12981 RAMONA BLVD. SUITE D IRWINDALE, CA 91706 SITUS ADDRESS: PARCEL AT END OF GANYMEDE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001038 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant stated that this property is part of a group of properties he owns jointly with Mr. Henry Melendez, and that he never received any notification letter, only an invoice. Appellant added that he went on-line onto the County Assessor‟s website and in both September of 2009 and again in January of 2010 updated the property owner address information. The Appellant felt that the imposition of Administrative fees was a financial burden, but provided no documentation at the hearing. The Appellant was asked to fax any relevant information for consideration. Appellant did fax in his 2009 1040, which was considered in making the recommendation. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

343

ALEX JIMENEZ ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001038 Page 2 completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. At the hearing the Appellant did state that the “Property Owner‟s Address” as reflected in the County Assessor‟s record of 816 Ganymede Drive, Los Angeles, California 90065 was the address of a vacant lot. The Department records do indicate that the first notification mail was returned, but as the Appellant indicated that address that he and his business partner placed on record was to a vacant lot where mail delivery was impossible. In addition, the Appellant did have a business partner who co-owned the property with him, and the Appellant did state that he works as a realtor. The Appellant stated at the hearing that he did in fact change the address on record with the County Assessor‟s Office, but provided no proof of this, and any address change would have taken effect after the fact, when the brush clearance had already been completed. Property owners do in fact have an ongoing duty to inspect their properties and remove hazardous conditions thereon. The fact that the property was a distance to drive to would not excuse the duty. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1176.

344


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: ALEX JIMENEZ MAILING ADDRESS: 12981 RAMONA BLVD. SUITE D IRWINDALE, CA 91706 SITUS ADDRESS: LOT S/E OF 841 GANYMEDE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001039 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant stated that this property is part of a group of properties he owns jointly with Mr. Henry Melendez, and that he never received any notification letter, only an invoice. Appellant added that he went on-line onto the County Assessor‟s website and in both September of 2009 and again in January of 2010 updated the property owner address information. The Appellant felt that the imposition of Administrative fees was a financial burden, but provided no documentation at the hearing. The Appellant was asked to fax any relevant information for consideration. Appellant did fax in his 2009 1040, which was considered in making the recommendation. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

345

ALEX JIMENEZ ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001039 Page 2 completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. At the hearing the Appellant did state that the “Property Owner‟s Address” as reflected in the County Assessor‟s record of 816 Ganymede Drive, Los Angeles, California 90065 was the address of a vacant lot. The Department records do indicate that the first notification mail was returned, but as the Appellant indicated that address that he and his business partner placed on record was to a vacant lot where mail delivery was impossible. In addition, the Appellant did have a business partner who co-owned the property with him, and the Appellant did state that he works as a realtor. The Appellant stated at the hearing that he did in fact change the address on record with the County Assessor‟s Office, but provided no proof of this, and any address change would have taken effect after the fact, when the brush clearance had already been completed. Property owners do in fact have an ongoing duty to inspect their properties and remove hazardous conditions thereon. The fact that the property was a distance to drive to would not excuse the duty. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due $1176.

346


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: ALEX JIMENEZ MAILING ADDRESS: 12981 RAMONA BLVD. SUITE D IRWINDALE, CA 91706 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 841 GANYMEDE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001040 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant stated that this property is part of a group of properties he owns jointly with Mr. Henry Melendez, and that he never received any notification letter, only an invoice. Appellant added that he went on-line onto the County Assessor‟s website and in both September of 2009 and again in January of 2010 updated the property owner address information. The Appellant felt that the imposition of Administrative fees was a financial burden, but provided no documentation at the hearing. The Appellant was asked to fax any relevant information for consideration. Appellant did fax in his 2009 1040, which was considered in making the recommendation. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 28, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 29, 2009.

347

ALEX JIMENEZ ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464001040 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 29, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. At the hearing the Appellant did state that the “Property Owner‟s Address” as reflected in the County Assessor‟s record of 816 Ganymede Drive, Los Angeles, California 90065 was the address of a vacant lot. The Department records do indicate that the first notification mail was returned, but as the Appellant indicated that address that he and his business partner placed on record was to a vacant lot where mail delivery was impossible. In addition, the Appellant did have a business partner who co-owned the property with him, and the Appellant did state that he works as a realtor. The Appellant stated at the hearing that he did in fact change the address on record with the County Assessor‟s Office, but provided no proof of this, and any address change would have taken effect after the fact, when the brush clearance had already been completed. Property owners do in fact have an ongoing duty to inspect their properties and remove hazardous conditions thereon. The fact that the property was a distance to drive to would not excuse the duty. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1176.

348


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: GARABET FAMILY TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 1245 W. HICREST RD. GLENDORA, CA 91741 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 400 FT SE OF 841 GANYMEDE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464002016 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 13, 2010, at 8:45 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 12, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 12, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

349

GARABET FAMILY TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464002016 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1176.

350


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175014 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: STEWART FAMILY TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3025 ORANGE,CA 92857 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 250 FT E OF 3594 DIVISION ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464004030 ASSESSMENT: $1176

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$150 $1026 $1176

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Richard M. Stewart sent in a written appeal stating that he was not notified about the hazards on the property, therefore he was not afforded the opportunity to bring the property into compliance at his own expense and should not be charged or assess any fees. He further states that his correct address is so noted and posted on the property perimeter fence as P.O. Box 3025 Orange, CA 92857. Exhibit B was presented which is a photographic photocopy of a picture depicting his name and address on a sign on a fence. Exhibit B is a copy of the invoice, which was sent to an address (1317 N. Chester Ave. Inglewood, CA 90302) a property he states that he has never occupied, owned or used as a mailing address. He stated he believed the Fire Department forwarded him the envelope that was sent to 1317 N. Chester Ave., Inglewood, CA, 90302 and that is how he found out he was in Noncompliance. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009.

351

STEWART FAMILY TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464004030 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The Fire Department record does not reflect any mail was returned. Due process was afforded to Appellant. The Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 57.21.07 prohibits hazardous vegetation to exist on parcels of land within the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, the owner is responsible for abatement of any hazards. Furthermore, Appellant is responsible for keeping current and notifying the County Assessor of his mailing address. Appellant is advised to notify the County Assessor of his current address immediately. The total assessment due is $1,176.

352


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: DAVID GIPS MAILING ADDRESS: 1454 RANDALL COURT LOS ANGELES CA 900651816 SITUS ADDRESS: RANDALL CT ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464030021 ASSESSMENT: $1216

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$190 $1026 $1216

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing the Realtor for the seller also appeared. The Appellant stated that they had no notice that the property had a Fire Department noncompliance lien attached and unpaid when he bought the property. The seller‟s realtor admitted that she received the mail from the property and sent them to the seller, but did not inform the buyer. She also provided what she claimed was a Form 9 Application, which was in fact only a city engineering report. The real 9a report, which was available at the time, was provided by the Fire Department at the hearing and was shown to the Appellant. The realtor did not provide the yellow doorknocker or the large red re-inspection notice to the seller or buyer although they were attached to the mailbox where she admitted she picked up all mail. The buyer claims that the seller, escrow company or the title company are liable for nondisclosure and he does have legal remedies if he wishes to file them against the same, The Fire Department was correct in intervening as the property was vacant and subject to serious fire risk and having been unkempt for a very long time. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice Noncompliance on May 6, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 11, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 31, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

353

DAVID GIPS ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5464030021 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department shows that due process was afforded. The record further shows. The Fire Inspector posted the Property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1216.

354


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175015 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: BABAKHAN, SHARON MAILING ADDRESS: 1174 CHERRY ST., UNIT 101 GLENDALE CA 912022296 SITUS ADDRESS: VAC LOT 700 BLOCK OF PHEASANT DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5466010010 ASSESSMENT: $1167

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$141 $1026 $1167

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Sharon Babakhan appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Ms. Babakhan stated that she only received the second Notice and immediately notified the Fire Department that she would clear it in 3 days and did so on July 19, 2009, three days prior to the City Contractor‟s work on the property. She states that she showed her cell phone pictures taken on July 21, 2009 at 10:25 am (Exhibit A) that the work had been done. She further stated that she cleared her property which is to the left of the telephone pole and that she even paid for a survey this year (Exhibit C, survey dated March 26, 2010 noting survey on March 20, 2010) along with Exhibits B-1 & B-2 (March 15, 2010, before clearance), and B-3 (April 10, 2010, after clearance). She stated that in 2008 she cleared a large portion around her land and was in compliance and she received a CBO, Exhibit D. Ms. Babakhan stated had she received the first notice by personal service she could have appealed to the fire department before additional administrative fees were imposed. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 9, 2009.

355

BABAKHAN, SHARON ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5466010010 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation. It is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. Given the survey evidence presented by the Appellant and the Fire Department photographs it appears that The Fire Department Inspector posted the telephone pole on the neighboring property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Inspector stated that telephone poles are usually on the property lines. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Due process was afforded to Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Appellant admitted that she realizes that in 2009 she failed to clear a few feet of the property. City Contractor worksheet does not note any work completed by owner. Inspector offered to give Appellant a courtesy CBO for this year upon her request. The total assessment due is $1,167.

356


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009176017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: PRYOR, RONALD MAILING ADDRESS: 1097 N. NORMANDY TER CORONA, CA 928801319 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/E 211 FURNESS AVE. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5467022009 ASSESSMENT: $1126

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$100 $1026 $1126

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that he and his family undertook the clearance of vegetation on his property, which he bagged into sixty-two oversized refuse bags. Appellant stated that he then called the Department of Public Works, to avail himself of the one-time free vegetation pick-up through the Department of Sanitation. Appellant was given a pick-up date of June 9, 2009, and provided the following confirmation # 04191347 for the work order. Appellant stated he believed that the pick-up had taken place as scheduled, and the first inkling he had that something had gone awry was when he received the notification of non-compliance sent to him by the Department in September 2009. Appellant added he then immediately contacted the City Sanitation Department to find out what went awry, and was informed that on the pick-up day in question a vehicle parked at the end of the narrow street, blocked entry and the Sanitation Department truck abandoned the pick-up attempt as the roadway is both very

357

PRYOR, RONALD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5467022009 Page 2 steep, as well as narrow Appellant said he was never informed by the Department of Public Works in those prior three months that there had been a problem with his pick-up, and he had not revisited the property either or he would have discovered the still-piled up bags. Appellant provided a photograph that he took of his property, but stated this was taken sometime after the cleanup had already occurred. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 3, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 9, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 9, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 5, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. However, the Appellant presented sufficient evidence and credible testimony to plead that the Assessment fee should be waived in its entirety. The Department inspection and photographic evidence do show that the vegetation had been cut and packed into bags ready for hauling, and the only outstanding issue was essentially the removal of the bags, which still posed a fire safety hazard. Appellant clearly knew that the clearing work needed to be done, and had substantially and materially complied by cutting, hauling, bagging, and stacking

358

PRYOR, RONALD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5467022009 Page 3 the vegetation into sixty plus oversized yard bags, and then calling and obtaining a work order with confirmation from the City‟s Sanitation Department that they would go and pick up the bags as part of the free service to the public that requests it. When the Sanitation Department were unable to complete the hauling away of the bags on the day in question, they apparently neglected to inform the Appellant of this important fact, or set up another day to revisit the property to complete the work order. Therefore, given the above circumstances, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Officer that the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. However, since a benefit was still conferred by the Department‟s in having the contractor actually remove all of the bags that the Sanitation Department did not pick up, it is recommended that the Appellant only pay the $100 Cost of Clearance. The total assessment due is $100.

359


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009176016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: FIFTY TWO INC. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2156

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA, 90213 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/W OF 4805 MONTE VISTA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5467023029 ASSESSMENT: $1526

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1026 $1526

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant did not appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. They wanted a written hearing and would send in the property deed. They sent in the wrong deed. A telephone call was made to Appellant and a message was left, but no return call came into the Fire Department. Since there is no evidence presented they are defaulted. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 4, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 13, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

360

FIFTY TWO INC. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5467023029 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The fire Department record shows that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The record further reflects that the Fire Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and the City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1526.

361


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: 49 TERRACE LLC/PHILLIP RODRIGUEZ MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 86738 LOS ANGELES, CA 91364-2152 SITUS ADDRESS: TERRACE 49 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5471015030 ASSESSMENT: $1476

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$450 $1026 $1476

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Phillip Rodriguez, Manager for 49 Terrace LLC requested a written appeal in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Mr. Rodriguez sent a letter with stating that 49 Terrace LLC purchased the property on June 22, 2009. Exhibit A is a Grant Deed showing date of recordation. Mr. Rodriguez states he was not given an opportunity to comply since he was not given notice and provided Exhibit C dated August 18, 2009, which is the Second Reprinted Notice of Noncompliance, received after the property was cleared on August 13, 2009, along with a copy Exhibit B of the reprinted Notice of Noncompliance first sent to the previous owner for the original inspection on May 5, 2009. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner-Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 10, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

362

49 TERRACE LLC/PHILLIP RODRIGUEZ ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5471015030 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than set forth in the brush Clearance invoice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was not afforded the appellant. The record further shows that the notice was sent to the previous owner and was returned to the Fire Department. There is no dispute as to the LAFD record showing that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard after the property remained out of compliance with the Brush Clearance Ordinance. Therefore, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Officer that the Administrative fee should be waived in its entirety. However, since a benefit was still conferred by the Department‟s in having the contractor actually abate the hazard, it is recommended that the Appellant only pay the $450.00 Cost of Clearance. The total assessment due is $450.00.

363


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175016 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: SAMUEL CHO C/O NASADA CORP MAILING ADDRESS: 3333 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE LOS ANGELES CA 90010 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5473031056 ASSESSMENT: $1206

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$180 $1026 $1206

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant Samuel Cho, CEO of Nasada Corp. (new owner as of November 20, 2009) attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing appeal and brought his Realtor that sold him the property, Cary Woochang Hong. Mr. Cho stated that he never received any notice of any violations or noncompliance on the property until he received this assessment in March 2010. Realtor Cary Hong stated that a preliminary title report on the property and due diligent property investigations, including numerous visits to the property, showed no violations and no postings of any notice on the property. Mr. Cho produced Exhibit A which is a printout from a title company dated August 27, 2009, showing Security National Trust taking ownership on June 26, 2009, and Exhibit B which is the same printout showing Security National trust as owner on October 6, 2009. Mr. Cho purchased this property as a bank owned (REO) property. He stated that it was the previous owner; Kristi Spikes that was sent the notices and that she should be held responsible as the noncompliant party. He further stated that the LAFD should have looked in the records and should have sent notices to the bank, Security National Trust that foreclosed on Kristi Spikes. He repeatedly stated he never received notice as to any noncompliance on the property. He further stated it is unfair to hold him liable, especially since he diligently inspected the property and paid for a property report. He stated the inspection report he paid for only showed that the property was in a high fire zone. Mr. Cho further stated that he appreciates LAFD for the work they perform and would like to move

364

SAMUEL CHO C/O NASADA CORP ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5473031056 Page 2 forward and offered to compensate the LAFD in the amount of $180 for the cost of clearance. Mr. Cho clarified that the situs address is to the East of 2606 Medlow Los Angeles, CA, 90041 and that he is in plan check now, building a home on the property in the future with the address of 2601 Hyler Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90041. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 17, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 17, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 3, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than set forth in the brush Clearance invoice. The Fire Department record shows that due process was not afforded the appellant. There is no dispute as to the LAFD record showing that the property was posted with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard after the property remained out of compliance with the Brush Clearance Ordinance. The Appellant showed that LAFD sent him the return address label with the assessment bill that was previously sent to Kristi Spikes in January of 2010. LAFD record shows that mail was returned and that a supplemental address was not ascertained for the new owner until March 2010. LAFD Inspector stated that had the Appellant paid $70.20 for a 9A report he would have seen that there was a potential lien against the property from the Fire Department documented as not clear on June 19, 2009, and July 2, 2009. Documentation regarding the 9A report, as set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 96.300 is referred to as a RPR requiring sellers of residential (includes vacant real property located in a zone wherein dwelling units or guest rooms are legally permitted) property to provide an RPR to the buyer before entering into an agreement of sale or exchange of residential property or prior to the close of escrow.

365

SAMUEL CHO C/O NASADA CORP ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5473031056 Page 3 Appellant in good faith attempted to investigate his purchase of the property and certainly never received notice of any noncompliance and Seller failed to disclose. Therefore, it is recommended that the Appellants offer to pay $180 be accepted. General Counsel for the LAFD was contacted and she agreed to accept Appellant‟s offer to pay the $180 to the LAFD and to waive the Administrative fees. The total assessment due is $180.

366


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175022 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 NAME: KHATRI FAMILY TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 4104 PARK VISTA DR. PASADENA CA 911071324 SITUS ADDRESS: ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5475019031 ASSESSMENT: $1151

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1026 $1151

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 13, 2010, at 8:45 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 27, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 14, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 14, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

367

KHATRI FAMILY TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5475019031 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment amount due is $1151.

368



COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1026 $1151

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 13, 2010, at 8:45 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 27, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

369

KHATRI FAMILY TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5475019032 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1151.

370



COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$125 $1026 $1151

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 13, 2010, at 8:45 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 27, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 7, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 7, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned.

371

KHATRI FAMILY TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5475019033 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment amount due is $1151.

372


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009176026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: ELY, VIRGINIA MAILING ADDRESS: 3614 PENNY CROSS DR. NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89032 SITUS ADDRESS: 141 AVENUE 64 ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5492035015 ASSESSMENT: $1287

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$175 $1112 $1287

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing with great difficulty. She is physically disabled and live on minimum fixed income with which she has to care for herself and a very disabled son. She lives in Las Vegas and has someone to send postings. But in this particular neighborhood she stated that children come and take papers from the yard and notices from the doors. The record reflects that the notice was sent to the wrong address in 2009. Her address has now been corrected and she should receive proper notice in the future. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 29, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 29, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 20, 2010. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

373

ELY, VIRGINIA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5492035015 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Given the health circumstances of the Appellant and her son during the brush season along with financial hardship, it is recommended that the appellant pay for the cost of clearance ($175.00) and that the Administrative fee be waived. The total assessment due is $175.00

374


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179022 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: JAVID, KAYVON H MAILING ADDRESS: 3614 W. ESTATES LN, UNIT A ROLLING HILLS ESTATES,CA 902744148 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF MULHOLLAND & SUNNY COVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5549005010 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 14, 2010, at 1:00 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 15, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 31, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 31, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was

375

JAVID, KAYVON H ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5549005010 Page 2 properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1226.

376


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: THOMPSON, PERCY R & EDNA MAILING ADDRESS: 19403 CAMPAIGN DR. CARSON CA 907462025 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 3 LOTS S/O 6850 SUNNY COVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5549005011 ASSESSMENT: $1276

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$250 $1026 $1276

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Karlton Levias, son of Appellants appeared on their behalf in the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Mr. Levias stated he recently in 2007 purchased the property with title placed in his parent‟s name. He states that his parents are in their mid 70‟s and on a fixed income. He stated his dad has diabetes. They did not receive the first notice most likely due to his parents being out of their home and not receiving their mail while they attended to his ill grandmother out of the area. Since he takes care of the property for his parents he was unaware of any violations. Mr. Levias has expressed a hardship upon his parents and himself and has asked for a reduction in the assessed fees. Mr. Levias further stated that in summer 2008, he met with the Fire Department Inspector to view the property to question what boundaries the Fire Department was considering, seeking clarification as to his brush clearance responsibility. Mr. Levias stated he believed that since his property is bedrock, solid rock, that it would take years for re-growth of vegetation and therefore thought that the following year he would be in compliance again. He stated he has acted in good faith with the fire department to understand his brush clearance responsibility, distinctly remembering being told to clear 5ft not 10 ft per instruction by the Inspector. Mr. Levias stated he did comply with what the Fire Department told him to do. Mr. Levias believes that possibly this year the DWP property next door to his property was cleared and billed to him.

377

THOMPSON, PERCY R & EDNA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5549005011 Page 2 Today, May 21, 2010, Mr. Levias returned to the Fire Department and stated that since he was confused on the pictures presented on his property by the Inspector he went to take pictures because he knew he was in compliance. Mr. Levias asked to have Exhibit A1 – A22 (pictures taken this week on his property) to be included in his Appeal. He stated that the pictures depict that the Adopt-A-Canyon Program of the California Environmental Project are responsible for placing vegetation on his property and that this was unknown to him. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. The record does not reflect mail being returned. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Hardship evidence was presented along with a good faith attempt to comply with brush clearance responsibilities by meeting with the Inspector the prior year on the property. Therefore it is recommended that the fees be reduced by $300. It is recommended that Appellants contact the County Assessor and keep current their mailing address. Appellant‟s son has requested the fire department to also address any future correspondence to him - Karlton Levias at: 139.S. Beverly Dr. #332, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. The total assessment due is $976.

378



HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181015 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: IMPROVED LOTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1061 1/2 N. SPAULDING AVE WEST HOLLYWOOD CA 90046 SITUS ADDRESS: VL N/O 8443 1/2 KIRKWOOD DRIVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556011015 ASSESSMENT: $1401

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$375 $1026 $1401

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 25, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. There is no record of mail being

379

IMPROVED LOTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556011015 Page 2 returned to the Fire Department. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1,401.

380


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181015 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: IMPROVED LOTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1061 1/2 N. SPAULDING AVE WEST HOLLYWOOD CA 90046 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 8431 KIRKWOOD DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556011025 ASSESSMENT: $1401

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$375 $1026 $1401

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 25, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. There is no record of mail being returned to the Fire Department. The Fire Department Inspector posted the

381

IMPROVED LOTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556011025 Page 2 property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1,401.

382


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181015 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: IMPROVED LOTS LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1061 1/2 N. SPAULDING AVE WEST HOLLYWOOD CA 90046 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 8427 KIRKWOOD DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556011051 ASSESSMENT: $1401

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$375 $1026 $1401

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 25, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice.

383

IMPROVED LOTS LLC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556011051 Page 2 Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. There is no record of mail being returned to the Fire Department. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1,401.

384


HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181030 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: LALAMA, ELENA E MAILING ADDRESS: 108 W. ROOSEVELT AVE MONTEBELLO CA 906405620 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556024021 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant presented a written appeal in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeal Hearing. Written documentation by Appellant discloses that she has been unemployed and just secured employment which prevented her from appearing in person. Her two main issues are that when she received the notice she cleared the brush by contacting a contractor recommended by the Fire Department and received a letter of compliance. Appellant included a copy of the 2008 CBO dated August 24, 2008, and stated she believed she was in compliance. Appellant‟s second issue is that she did not receive further notice to let her know brush clearance was needed again and had she received notice she would have taken care of the brush clearance. Appellant included a Notice of Noncompliance dated June 18, 2009. Appellant‟s written appeal states she cannot afford to pay the assessed amount. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was

385

LALAMA, ELENA E ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556024021 Page 2 completed on September 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. . On August 30, 2009, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was posted on the property. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The record does not reflect any communication with the Appellant and the Fire Department until May 11, 2010 via fax appeal, which includes a letter to the Fire Department contesting the assessment, dated February 4, 2010. Appellant‟s written appeal includes proof she received notice. The CBO presented by Appellant clearly states that if vegetation re-growth occurs an owner may be required to perform additional brush clearance. Appellant‟s written evidence submitted for consideration only shows a CBO Cleaned by Owner for the year 2008, not one for 2009. City Contractor worksheet does not note any work completed by owner. Brush Clearance is a year round responsibility. The Inspector offered to give Appellant a courtesy CBO for this year 2010 upon her completion of her brush clearing responsibilities and suggests that she do so as soon as possible. It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist her with brush clearance responsibilities. The total assessment due is $1,226.

386


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181030 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: ROCKE, ROBERT S & DINAH D TR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 801747 SANTA CLARITA, CA 913801747 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L W/OF 1689 WOODS DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556024030 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that he had no knowledge of the red-posted notice, or any of the Notification notices that were sent through the mails. Appellant stated that his father became very ill and was placed in a convalescent home in November 2008, passing away on March 28, 2009. His Mother was also in failing health, and was placed in a convalescent home in 2009. Appellant believed that his parent‟s house stood vacant from January 2009 onwards. A Durable Power Attorney was provided to the Appellant by his Mother on May 20, 2009. Appellant also stated that his parents insisted that they were competent to handle their own affairs. Appellant added that he was only slowly taking over the affairs of his parents and that he was not even aware that this vacant lot was owned by his parents until he went through paperwork pertaining to their affairs, and that was only after the clearance work had been completed.

387

ROCKE, ROBERT S & DINAH D TR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556024030 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on August 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on August 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 27, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s parent‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. In addition, according to the Appellant, he had begun to take control over his parent‟s financial affairs in 2008, and as such would have been responsible to ensure that those affairs were handled in an expeditious manner consistent with such fiduciary duties. According to the Form 9A report in the package, arrearages reflect for 2009, 2004, and 2002. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1226.

388


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181032 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: DIHNO, AHARON MAILING ADDRESS: 2402 CARMAN CREST DR LOS ANGELES CA 900682603 SITUS ADDRESS: 8115 LAUREL VIEW DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556027001 ASSESSMENT: $1676

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$650 $1026 $1676

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 17, 2010, at 10:15 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on June 22, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 6, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 6, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 11, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

389

DIHNO, AHARON ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5556027001 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1676.

390

REPORT AND PROPOSED DECISION REPORT AND PROPOSED DECISION


HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181037 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: RAMON WILSON MAILING ADDRESS: 1733 SUNSET PLAZA DR LOS ANGELES CA 90069 SITUS ADDRESS: 1733 SUNSET PLAZA DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5558012026 ASSESSMENT: $1312

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1112 $1312

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 17, 2010 at 1:45 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on September 2, 2009, with a compliance due date of September 23, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 4, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 4, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs, in fact, according to the photographs in the package, the red

391

RAMON WILSON ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5558012026 Page 2 notice was posted to the front door. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner according to the necessary code requirements to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1312.

392


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 17, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181043 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: LERNER, MICHELINE TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 8555 HEDGES PLACE LOS ANGELES CA 900691412 SITUS ADDRESS: 8555 HEDGES PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5559015002 ASSESSMENT: $2912

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$1800 $1112 $2912

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant submitted a written appeal in the 2009 Brush Clearance Appeals Hearing. Appellant sent a letter of explanation to the Fire Department for the Appeal. The file has a comment received from Appellant‟s brush clearance contractor that work was scheduled to be done which was prior to second notice of violation. Appellant then called to inform the Fire Department that she thought the brush clearance was done. Appellant further stated she was also in the hospital with broken ribs, is 89 years old, blind, and has financial concerns, requesting the administrative fee be waived. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on April 29, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 15, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

393

LERNER, MICHELINE TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5559015002 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. There is no record that mail was returned. Under Paragraph C, Los Angeles Municipal Code, section 57.21.07. Hazardous Vegetation it is stated that the notice shall be either posted on the parcel or mailed to the owner or both. The record does not reflect any communication with the Appellant and the Fire Department It is recommended that Appellant become familiar with the 2010 LAFD Brush Clearance Program Information Reminder pamphlet, which includes a list of Independent Contractors that may assist Appellant with brush clearance responsibilities. Appellant showed a partial good faith attempt to comply with brush clearance responsibilities by hiring a contractor and has tried to communicate with the Fire Department Inspectors a number of times. Evidence of financial hardship was not presented. Documentation submitted by Appellant and Fire Department Contractor worksheet is unclear regarding the percentage of compliance by Appellant and her contractor. The total assessment due is $2,912.

394


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173026 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: ALWARDI DHIA A & HANAA ET MAILING ADDRESS: 225 W. MAIN ST ALHAMBRA CA 918013403 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L WEST OF 2157 STANLEY HILLS DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5562006010 ASSESSMENT: $13656

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$12630 $1026 $13656

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant denied receipt of the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work he had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant said he took action to ensure that the 19.3 acre lot was cleared, and paid his gardener Mr. Jesus Garcia $750.00 with check # 278 on April 18, 2009; $3,500.00 with check # 279 on May 9, 2009; and $600.00 with check # 256 on September 28, 2009; all for “Brush Clearing” as noted on the checks Memo line. Appellant provided the copies of his cashed checks as attached to his bank statements. Appellant asked that if he had paid his gardener a combined total of $4,850.00 to complete the clearance work, why would he have been assessed a $12,630.00 Cost of Clearance by the City contractor for what he classified as the “same” clearance work on his property. Appellant requested the Cost of Clearance be either reduced or waived.

395

ALWARDI DHIA A & HANAA ET ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5562006010 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. The Department Inspector noted at the hearing that there had been no communication by either mail or phone from the property owner at any time during the five months duration the process took from the initial inspection to the final contracted clearance, and that he could have advised the Appellant as to the clearance work that might have been overlooked. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $13,656.

396


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: YEH, FRANK Y & GRACE W MAILING ADDRESS: 2500 HONOLULU AVE #225 MONTROSE, CA 912082215 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF 8952 WONDERLAND AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563002010 ASSESSMENT: $1116

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$90 $1026 $1116

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellants appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellants at the hearing. Appellants acknowledged receipt of the red-posted notice, as well as the Notification notices that were sent to them through the mails, and stated that they believed that the clean-up work they had performed was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant added that they have been using the same private contractor for the past several years, and that they previously withheld $100.00 from their payment pending Fire Department Clearance Notification. In this instance in 2009, Appellants stated that they paid their contractor in full, and provided both the invoice as well a copy of a check showing that it had been cashed. The Appellants also added that they personally went onto the lot in question, and personally verified that the clean-up work had been satisfactorily completed, stating that their independent contractor was well aware of the code specifications and requirements.

397

YEH, FRANK Y & GRACE W ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563002010 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1116.

398


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: YEH, FRANK Y & GRACE W MAILING ADDRESS: 2500 HONOLULU AVE #225 MONTROSE, CA 912082215 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L SOUTH OF 8926 WONDERLAND AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563002011 ASSESSMENT: $1116

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$90 $1026 $1116


399

YEH, FRANK Y & GRACE W ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563002011 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 30, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld The total assessment due is $1116.

400


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: YEH, FRANK Y & GRACE W MAILING ADDRESS: 2500 HONOLULU AVE #225 MONTROSE, CA 912082215 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/OF 8926 WONDERLAND AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563002012 ASSESSMENT: $1116

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$90 $1026 $1116


401


402


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: YEH, FRANK Y & GRACE W MAILING ADDRESS: 2500 HONOLULU AVE #225 MONTROSE, CA 912082215 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 105' N/OF 9049 CRESCENT DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563002013 ASSESSMENT: $1116

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$90 $1026 $1116


403


404


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 11, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009173028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: LICHT, A MARSHALL MAILING ADDRESS: 8624 WONDERLAND AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 900461453 SITUS ADDRESS: 8624 WONDERLAND AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563009029 ASSESSMENT: $1201

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$175 $1026 $1201

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant stated that his contest was based on purely economic concerns, and that the assessment was a great financial hardship. Appellant reviewed the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” phases, reviewed the independent Contractor photographs, but stated that he believed that the brush clearance was undertaken beyond his 110 foot property line from the road. Appellant also stated that he did not receive the red posted notice, but that he did receive the yellow door tag, and Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails. Appellant provided documentation from the tax years 2008 and 2009 Form SSA-1099 showing his Social Security Benefit award, along with a letter of diagnosis from the Department of Medicine at the University of Southern California (USC) relating to his medical condition. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 19, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 30, 2009.

405

LICHT, A MARSHALL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5563009029 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 30, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 19, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. At the hearing, the Department inspector clarified that the Notices provided did indicate that the effective line was 200 feet from any structure. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION With regard to this property, it appears that brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specifications prior to contractor cleanup. According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. Therefore, there appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served. Appellant has pleaded extreme hardship given his current health and financial circumstances, and in the interest of justice it is recommended that the levied Administrative fees be waived. Since a benefit was conferred in having the contracted clean up performed on his property, the recommendation is set forth that the Appellant only be responsible for the Cost of Clearance portion. The total assessment due is $175.

406


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 18, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009182028 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: ARKADY ROZENBERG MAILING ADDRESS: 2309 APOLLO DR LOS ANGELES CA 900462060 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 25' S/OF 8601 SKYLINE DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5564009011 ASSESSMENT: $1612

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1112 $1612

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that he is a builder and bought this lot in addition to others in 1989, and had transferred its ownership to his daughter. Appellant stated he received neither the red posted notice, nor the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails, and stated that he believed that the clean-up work his daughter contracted to be performed by Mr. Jose Luis Valenzuela was sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant provided a receipt dated June 1, 2009 from Mr. Valenzuela reflecting clean up for “hills,” and a charge of $300.00. Appellant provided photographs, which he said, showed that the cleanup work that had been performed was completed up to the property line. Appellant added that he has used the same crew to undertake cleanup over the last two years without any problems.

407

ARKADY ROZENBERG ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5564009011 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 20, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 5, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 5, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Appellant‟s contention that he had contracted for and had completed brush clearance work ahead of the City contractor is not credibly supported by any of the proffered documentation submitted as evidence. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1612.

408


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 21, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009171031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: CHAFIR, MAXIMILIEN MAILING ADDRESS: 8035 BRIAR SUMMIT DR LOS ANGELES CA 90046 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L EAST OF 8136 WILLOW GLEN RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5565016001 ASSESSMENT: $2047

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$935 $1112 $2047

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing on May 21, 2010. At the hearing he stated that in 2007 he moved to Missouri, but kept an apartment in Hollywood and had address changed to his Missouri residence. Some of the Brush Clearance Notices went to Missouri address and some to the Hollywood address, which should have been forwarded to Missouri location, but never made it there. The Appellant did receive the Assessment Hearing Notice for 2008 however he could not get to California for the hearing and paid the approximately $3,000 assessment fee. Again the 2009 Assessment Notices went to different addresses and he states he did not receive them. He moved back to Los Angeles on January 15, 2010 and changed his address with the assessor‟s office however mail was still going to Missouri and Hollywood from the Fire Department. He brought in a Report for Jury Duty and DMV notice both sent to his current address. The Fire Department finally sent the Notice to appear at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing the correct address, which the Fire Department updated on February 17, 2010. The Appellant requests that the Assessment be waived because of all the notice confusion.

409

CHAFIR, MAXIMILIEN ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5565016001 Page 2Department INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on September 11, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 5, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 5, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 16, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than set forth in the notice. The Fire Inspector acted correctly in following Fire Department procedure and issuing all notices and having the City Contractor clear all the Fire Hazard from the property, reducing the fire risk and protecting this property and the surrounding neighborhood. Because of the confusion with the various notices going different directions the Administrative fee is waived only. The total assessment due is $935.

410


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179036 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 NAME: KING, DEREK MAILING ADDRESS: 8147 AMOR RD LOS ANGELES CA 900461101 SITUS ADDRESS: 8147 AMOR RD ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5565039003 ASSESSMENT: $1587

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$475 $1112 $1587

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant, Derek King appeared in the 2009 Brush Clearance Hearing. Mr. King stated that since the end of 2008 he has been in financial trouble and has a notice of default on his mortgage and pending foreclosure. He stated he is trying to get a mortgage modification and produced communications with his bank in this regard (Loss Mitigator for Met Life Home Loans is Bryan Foster. Mr. King stated he inherited the gardener from the previous owner and has paid his gardener to maintain the brush clearance on his property and believed he was in compliance, stating that the vacant home next door on the market for sale, which had overgrown vegetation, must have been mistaken for his property. He further stated that he paid his gardener extra, submitting Exhibit A, a bill in the amount of $323.00 from Mendoza‟s Gardening & Landscaping dated October 19,2009, for the cost to clear more brush after he received the second notice and before the City Contractor cleared his property on November 3, 2009. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 20, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 14, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 14, 2009.

411

KING, DEREK ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5565039003 Page 2 The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 14, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in an amount less than the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant. The record does not reflect mail being returned. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. Contractor worksheet shows some work completed by owner. Hardship evidence was presented along with a good faith attempt by Appellant to comply with brush his clearance responsibilities. Therefore it is recommended that the fees be reduced by $455.00. The total assessment due is $1,132.

412


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009181014 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: PAKKIDIS, GEORGE MAILING ADDRESS: 14614 GAULT ST. VAN NUYS CA 91405 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5567018011 ASSESSMENT: $1248

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$222 $1026 $1248

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 25, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 16, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 15, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 12, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been

413

PAKKIDIS, GEORGE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5567018011 Page 2 completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1248.

414


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009171033 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: BRITTINGHAM, SAMUEL L. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 64883 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 234626245 SITUS ADDRESS: 2335 MERRYWOOD DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5567031014 ASSESSMENT: $1612

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$500 $1112 $1612

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled for May 20, 2010. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on September 25, 2009, with a compliance due date of October 15, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 19, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 19, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 2, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do indicate that the Second Notice of Noncompliance was returned on October 21, 2009, and provided a new forwarding address of “P.O. Box 61933, Virginia Beach, VA 23455-1933,” and the Department records were updated.

415

BRITTINGHAM, SAMUEL L. ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5567031014 Page 2 The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. It is also the property owner‟s responsibility to update the contact address information for their property. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1612.

416


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: FITZGERALD, DANIEL MAILING ADDRESS: 5102 PACIFIC AVE MARINA DEL REY CA 90292-7114 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ON LA ROCHA ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5576009055 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1.226.

417


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: PACKAGE NO.: 2009179037 COUNCIL DISTRICT:4 NAME: SANTOS, FERNANDO I & MARIA E MAILING ADDRESS: 7040 SUNSET BLVD. #A LOS ANGELES, CA 90028 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 6436 QUEBEC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5576009096 ASSESSMENT: $1512

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1112 $1512

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant attended the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. The Appellant claimed that he received no notice by mail to this old address however the notice that was returned to the Department had the present address on the envelope and had been crossed out and therefore, it returned to the Department. When questioned about the legally posted Red Notice he admitted he did not go to the bottom of the property where it was posted in plain sight. The Appellant did not do any work to clear the property and he admitted he knew hew was to maintain the property safe from fire risk and other dangers all year long as the owner whether notices or not. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor photographs provided show an extremely volatile area which needed clearing immediately in order to protect this property and the community. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on September 1. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on October 27, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on October 27, 2009. . The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on November 30, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance.

418

SANTOS, FERNANDO I & MARIA E ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5576009096 Page 2 PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been assessed in an amount less that set forth in the notice since some of the notices were returned to the Department it is not clear that the Appellant was given due process. The Fire Department was correct in following procedure and having the property cleared of a very hazardous condition at the time of the clearance. The Appellant is responsible for the City‟s cost of clearing his property. The total assessment due is $400.

419


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: PACTERA INC MAILING ADDRESS: 2323 W. 8TH ST 200 LOS ANGELES CA 90057-5023 SITUS ADDRESS: VACANT LAND ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5577032014 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 13, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleaned-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance Notice. Fire Department records reflect that due process was afforded to the Appellant and he failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard. The Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs depicting the hazardous conditions that existed at the time of clearance. The total assessment due is $1,226.

420


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 20, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179031 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: YASHENG YANG MAILING ADDRESS: 727 BREA CANYON RD. SUITE 1A WALNUT, CA 91789 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 6451 DEEP DELL PL ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5577032015 ASSESSMENT: $1226

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$200 $1026 $1226

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Ms. Kim Tong, Real Estate agent and Appellant, and Mr. George Lai as a friend of the property owner, appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing on behalf of Mr. Yasheng Yang, the property owner. At the hearing, Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Ms. Tong denied that Mr. Yang received the red-posted notice, or the Official Notification letters that were sent through the mails, and stated that Mr. Yang believed that the responsibility for any clean-up work to meet the code specifications rested with the previous owner whom he bought the property from. Appellant added that Mr. Yang received no notices, and that all notices were sent to the previous owner. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on July 13, 2009, with a compliance due date of August 2, 2009. There was no record of an F-

421

YASHENG YANG ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5577032015 Page 2 1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 1, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 1, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 24, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department‟s records the property was properly physically posted with signs. A red tag notice was physically posted, and in addition Official Notices were mailed the owner of record as it appears in official records obtained from the County Assessor‟s Office. The Department records do not indicate any “Official Notification” letters being returned by the US Postal Service. It appears the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed according to the required specification prior to contractor cleanup. It was Mr. Yang‟s stated contention that the Assessment was the responsibility of the previous owner. According to the County Assessor Parcel Information form, Mr. Yasheng Yang was the new property owner as of May 1, 2009, which meant that he was the owner of record from the time of first inspection in July 2009 all the way through to contractor cleanup in October 2009. Therefore, it is recommendation of this Hearing Officer that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative Fee should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1226.

422


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179014 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: PACTERA INC MAILING ADDRESS: 2528 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. STE #201 LOS ANGELES CA 90006 SITUS ADDRESS: 6448 GEORGIUS WAY ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5577033007 ASSESSMENT: $1201

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$175 $1026 $1201

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 20, 2010 at 2:15PM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 14, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 13, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 13, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 21, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was

423

PACTERA INC ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5577033007 Page 2 properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1201.

424


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: SCHMIT, STEVEN C MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 17928 LOS ANGELES CA 900170928 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 3305 HILLOCK DRIVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5579001014 ASSESSMENT: $1276

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$250 $1026 $1276

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant failed to appear for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing scheduled on May 14, 2010 at 10:15 AM. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of May 31, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 24, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 24, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 4, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was

425

SCHMIT, STEVEN C ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5579001014 Page 2 properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1276.

426


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179024 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: HUGH I BIELE MAILING ADDRESS: 3478 WONDER VIEW DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90068-1536 SITUS ADDRESS: 3205 TARECO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5579035014 ASSESSMENT: $1421

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$395 $1026 $1421

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that he never noticed the red posted notice, and that the Notification notices that were sent to him through the mails went to the property address where he had tenants residing, and that he only found the notification letters in a pile of mail that his tenants left behind. Appellant stated that he had hired a gardener to complete the clean-up work for around $1,000.00, believing it to be sufficient to meet the clean-up code specifications. Appellant stated that he in fact posted on the Internet a virtual tour of the work that had been completed. He indicated that he had contacted the County Assessor‟s office on at least two separate occasions to inform them of the fact that he wanted his listed address changed, and that he made the change on-line so that mail could be delivered to his home address and not the property address. Appellant added that he was not aware of prior to the hearing that his responsibility for clearance of brush on the property included ten feet from the roadway, and that had he been aware of this; he would have taken measures to comply.

427

HUGH I BIELE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5579035014 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 22, 2009, with a compliance due date of June 7, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 24, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 24, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on September 26, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. The documents in the package do indicate that clearance work was undertaken by owner, and that the only outstanding area was that alongside the roadway that needed to be cleared. Additionally, mail was sent to both the property address where the Appellant stated his tenants had resided, as well as to the mailing address he provided to the County Assessor. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. The Appellant stated that he discovered at the hearing the information regarding his additional responsibility for roadside clearance that he had been previously unaware of, and that had he known he would not have scheduled this protest hearing. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1421.

428


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 14, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009179017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4 NAME: SHULGOLD, ROBERT L TRUST MAILING ADDRESS: 6854 YARMOUTH AVE RESEDA, CA 91335 SITUS ADDRESS: 2008 TAFT AVE ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5587014019 ASSESSMENT: $1426

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$400 $1026 $1426

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Mr. Robert Shulgold (Appellant) appeared for the Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. Appellant reviewed documentation in the package, including the Department photographs taken at the “Post,” “Bid,” and “Final” stages, as well as the “Before,” “During,” and “After” photographs taken independently by the Contractor. The “Zima‟s Intranet” map was also reviewed by the Appellant at the hearing. Appellant stated that the property owner is his mother, who was 93 in 2009, and whose health declined precipitously after May 2009 when she broke her femur, which required an operation and extensive hospitalization and follow-up care. In addition, Appellant added his Mother also suffers from cognitive impairment. Appellant added that he was never made aware of any notices, either from his mother, or her caregiver. A tenant on the property did not provide any notices to the Appellant, or his Mother. Finally in November 2009 the property was sold to a new owner, and his mother was now living in a convalescent care facility. Appellant stated that his mother only receives limited funds from the Social Security Administration, and that the imposition of the Assessment is a severe financial hardship. Appellant stated that he would fax in further documentation that could be weighed in rendering the recommendation regarding his mother‟s financial plight, and asked that only the cost of clearance be paid.

429

SHULGOLD, ROBERT L TRUST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5587014019 Page 2 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 15, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on July 16, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on July 16, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on August 28, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION According to the Department records, notice was sent to the Appellant‟s current address, as reflected on official records pertaining to the property owner‟s address. The Department records do not indicate that any mail was returned. The Department‟s records also indicate that the property was properly physically posted with signs. There appears to be no issue as to whether the Appellant was properly served, and the Department has been able to present documentation sufficient to show that the brush clearance and abatement work had not been completed by the property owner (pursuant to the code requirements), sufficient to negate the posed fire safety hazards prior to contractor cleanup. Therefore, it appears that the Cost of Clearance and the Administrative fees were properly assessed, and the recommendation of this Hearing Officer is that the Total Assessment should be upheld. The total assessment due is $1426 `

430


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 13, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175030 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: LAI MACK MAILING ADDRESS: 13415 E. CIENEGA CREEK DR. VAIL, AZ 856419079 SITUS ADDRESS: 2681 PRISMO DR ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5684023017 ASSESSMENT: $1706

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$680 $1026 $1706

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing He stated that he inherited the Los Angeles house from his parents but very seldom sees it, as he lives in Arizona. He claimed he never received notice, but later admitted that he received the yellow doorknob notice and the red re-inspection notices as his neighbor sent them to him. The Appellant stated that he should not be responsible for palm fronds and why was he cited. The Inspector explained that there had been multiple complaints from neighbors with the fronds dropping into their yards and all over the street. The Inspector further informed the Appellant that the property was in a high fire risk area and how dangerous the palm fronds are if on fire. The Appellant kept insisting that he should not be responsible. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on August 18, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on September 14, 2009.

431

LAI MACK ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5684023017 Page 2 A work order was prepared and the property was posted on September 14, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on October 9, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount as set forth in the notice. The Fire Department record reflects that the Appellant was afforded due process. All notices were legally sent and posted as stated above. The total assessment due is $1706.

432


2009 BRUSH CLEARANCE HEARING DATE: May 12, 2010 PACKAGE NO.: 2009175010 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14 NAME: NINA GOREE /KEVIN POLIN MAILING ADDRESS: 1735 N. GRAMERCY PL. #305 LOS ANGELES, CA 90028 SITUS ADDRESS: V/L N/OF 5482 DAHLIA ST ASSESSOR‟S I.D. NO.: 5691024040 ASSESSMENT: $1846

COST OF CLEARANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

TOTAL ASSESSMENT

$820 $1026 $1846

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant failed to appear for the 2009 Brush Clearance Assessment Hearing. No opposition evidence was submitted for the record. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The Department issued an F-1308 Notice of Noncompliance on May 5, 2009. There was no record of an F-1307 Cleared-By-Owner Inspection Report on file; therefore, a Second Notice of Noncompliance was issued on June 20, 2009. A work order was prepared and the property was posted on June 20, 2009. The property was subsequently contracted to a City Contractor and work was completed on July 8, 2009. Photographs are on file showing the condition of the property before, during and after clearance. PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed assessment against your property has been confirmed in the amount set forth in the Brush Clearance Noncompliance notice. The Fire Department record reflects that due process was afforded the Appellant, who failed to attend the scheduled hearing. The record further shows that the Fire Department Inspector posted the property with a Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance and Fire Hazard and the Fire Inspector and City Contractor provided photographs, which depict the hazardous condition, which existed at the time of the clearance. The total assessment due is $1846

Documents

BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS CITY oF Los ANGELE~ …