PRESIDENT - Los Angelesens.lacity.org/.../lafdlafdreport186483500_08012013.pdf · 2013. 8. 1. · board of fire commissioners ____ genethia hudley-hayes president casimiro u. tolentino

BOARD OF FIRE

COMMISSIONERS ____

GENETHIA HUDLEY-HAYES

PRESIDENT

CASIMIRO U. TOLENTINO VICE PRESIDENT

STEVEN R. FAZIO ANDREW FRIEDMAN

ALAN J. SKOBIN ____

LETICIA GOMEZ

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA

ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR

FIRE DEPARTMENT

____

BRIAN L. CUMMINGS FIRE CHIEF

____

6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 451 Van Nuys, California 91401

(800)994-4444 FAX: (818) 778-4910

http://www.lafd.org

ATTACHMENT 2 (DATE) Dear Property Owner: As President of the Los Angeles Board of Fire Commissioners, I am writing to inform you of the decision regarding your written appeal of the Noncompliance Inspection Fee assessed toward your property for the 2012 Brush Clearance Season. Due to the volume of Noncompliance Inspection Fee written appeals that were received by my office, the task of reviewing each appeal became a very time consuming job, I thank you for your patience. Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 57.03.05, provides the Board of Fire Commissioners the authority to review the Noncompliance Inspection Fee Written Appeals. The Code also provides that the determination by the Board of Fire Commissioners shall be final. The Hearing Officer assigned to your appeal has completed a thorough review of your written appeal and the Los Angeles Fire Department records concerning your property. Based on the Hearing Officer’s recommendation, the Los Angeles Board of Fire Commissioners has determined that your Noncompliance Inspection Fee Written Appeal has been GRANTED. Thank you for your courtesy and patience throughout the appeal process, and please remember that brush clearance is a year-round responsibility. Very truly yours, Genethia Hudley-Hayes, President Board of Fire Commissioners Attachment

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY – AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

BOARD OF FIRE

COMMISSIONERS ____

GENETHIA HUDLEY-HAYES

PRESIDENT

CASIMIRO U. TOLENTINO VICE PRESIDENT

STEVEN R. FAZIO ANDREW FRIEDMAN

ALAN J. SKOBIN ____

LETICIA GOMEZ

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA

ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR

FIRE DEPARTMENT

____

BRIAN L. CUMMINGS FIRE CHIEF

____

6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 451 Van Nuys, California 91401

(800)994-4444 FAX: (818) 778-4910

http://www.lafd.org

ATTACHMENT 3 (DATE) Dear Property Owner: On behalf of the Los Angeles Board of Fire Commissioners, I am writing to inform you of the decision regarding your written appeal of the noncompliance fee assessed on your property for the 2012 Brush Clearance Season. The Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 57.03.05, authorizes the Board of Fire Commissioners or their representative to review the Noncompliance Inspection Fee Written Appeals. The Municipal Code also stipulates that the determination by the Board is final. The Hearing Officer assigned to your appeal has completed a thorough review of the documentation that you provided and the Los Angeles Fire Department’s records concerning your property. Based on the Hearing Officer’s recommendation, the Los Angeles Board of Fire Commissioners has determined that your Noncompliance Inspection Fee Written Appeal is DENIED. The $312.00 Noncompliance Inspection Fee must be received by (DATE). Please note that if your payment is not received by the established deadline, you are subject to a 50% penalty. Additionally, any outstanding balances are sent to the County Assessor’s Office for assessment onto the property tax bill. If you have any further questions, please contact the Brush Clearance Unit at (800) 994-4444. Thank you for your courtesy and patience throughout the appeal process. Please remember that brush clearance is a year-round responsibility. Sincerely, GENETHIA HUDLEY-HAYES President, Board of Fire Commissioners Attachment

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY – AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

1

2012 NONCOMPLIANCE INSPECTION FEE

WRITTEN APPEALS

HEARING DATE: June 5, 2013 Council District: 12

NAME: WHITING,ANTONY R

MAILING ADDRESS: 8650 LIMEROCK TRL WEST HILLS, CA 91304

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/W OF 8713 LAVA PLON LIMERI

ASSESSOR'S ID NO: 2017018030

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner purchased this property, along with six other parcels, in 1999, and has sought to pursue proper brush clearance ever since that time. He says that he is struggling to make ends meet, and asks that this fee be waived.

DEPARTMENT INFORMATION

� First Inspection performed on May 11, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 7, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a

$312.00 Non-compliance inspection fee is assessed.

PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. Your Hearing Officer acknowledges the owners letter, which implicitly admits the Fire Departments compliance with due process. The letter offers no documentary evidence of the extent of hardship; and absent such proof the bare assertion cannot suffice to support the requested waiver. Total assessment due is $312.00.

2


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ABEDI,NAHID

MAILING ADDRESS: 6950 LARCHWOOD CIR WEST HILLS, CA 91307

SITUS ADDRESS: 6950 LARCHWOOD CIR

ASSESOR'S ID NO: 2028021005

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes that she is a single mother with diagnosed mental illness. She states that she never received the first notice, although the Fire Department’s record reveals no returned mail. The owner concludes that she called the Fire Department after receiving the second notice, and that she was given instructions, and told that if she followed them she would not be charged. For its part, the Fire Department record reflects the September 17, 2012 call, but adds that the owner became rude, and that in fact the Inspector was compelled to hang up. Then the owner called back.


� First Inspection performed on June 3, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 5, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Your Hearing Officer wishes not to reward poor behavior, and notes that due process was met. In light of the appellant’s hardship claim and for no other reason, your Hearing Officer recommends a reduction of the noncompliance fee to the sum of $100.00. Total assessment due is $100.00.

3


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: DVET PROPERTIES LLC

MAILING ADDRESS: 5738 WILHELMINA AVE WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367

SITUS ADDRESS: 5738 WILHELMINA AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owners states simply that the notices were not received, and that effort was made to abate the hazard in February 2012.


� First Inspection performed on May 15, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 5, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Notices were returned to the Fire Department. The appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance fee. The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department record demonstrates proper forms of service, and due process obligations were met. Total assessment due is $312.00.

4


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: D VISION LLC

MAILING ADDRESS: 23679 CALABASAS RD # 65 CALABASAS CA 91302

SITUS ADDRESS: 24100 PHILIPRIMM ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The second inspection was performed on September 5, 2012, and the property was red tagged. The Appellant admits he was legally served and red tagged and work was not done at time of inspection. Noncompliance fee automatically attached.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the noncompliance fee as assessed. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and provided all notices as legally required. The appellant admits to all notices and that required cleaning not done. He provided no legally acceptable recommendations or reasons to waive the noncompliance fee. The total amount due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

5


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: PRATT,DAVID R TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 21900 MARYLEE ST NO 273 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367

SITUS ADDRESS: 21900 MARYLEE ST NO 273


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims that he did not receive the first notice, and also that no inspection actually occurred on its alleged March 15, 2012, date. The owner writes also that he would not have had to comply with the notice even had it been served, because it concerned trash left behind his unit by members of his HOA.


� First Inspection performed on March 15, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on June 27, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on July 13, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312. Noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department made all inspection appearances and mailed and posted all notices as legally required, affording the Appellant due process. No notices were returned to the Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

6


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SHOSHANA,OFER S

MAILING ADDRESS: 20448 COULSON ST WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367

SITUS ADDRESS: 5704 COMANCHE AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner confirms receipt of the first notice, but says that she performed the clearance in June 2012.


� First Inspection performed on May 18, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 14, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on August 17, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 non-compliance fee should be imposed. There may have been re-growth, and though the owner denies having received the second notice, noncompliance already had been found. Total assessment due is $312.00.

7


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: TRAN, BAO G AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 1841 SCOTT ST NO 2 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94115

SITUS ADDRESS: 5220 ELVIRA RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner states that he received the notices and complied, by engaging a private contractor. The owner adds that he contacted the Fire Departments Inspector via telephone, and received instructions. He fulfilled the instructions, and called to report that fact. When he never heard back, he apparently concluded that no more needed to be done.


� First Inspection performed on April 30, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 13, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on August 21, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. While the owner commendably worked to comply with the rules and with instructions, the documentation is equally clear in requiring written acknowledgment, in the form of a CBO, before compliance may be confirmed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

8


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: YU,NAN AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 4523 GRIMES PL ENCINO CA 91316 0000

SITUS ADDRESS: 4523 GRIMES PL


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner received a CBO in error, and was given until August 10, 2012, within which he had to comply, but is charged here for the July 17, 2012 second, non-complying inspection.


� First Inspection performed on May 23, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 17, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on August 14, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, in light of the written evidence. Total assessment due is $0.00.

9


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: TABIBIAN,SEAN

MAILING ADDRESS: 1776 N HIGHLAND AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90028

SITUS ADDRESS: 4576 MARTSON DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes that he is in compliance, and was as of the second inspection, when the Inspector must have erred in addressing this odd lot.


� First Inspection performed on May 23, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 21, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 27, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. Your Hearing Officer is satisfied that no property-line error occurred. Total assessment due is $312.00.

10


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: DIMARCO,STEVEN J TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 2537 AQUASANTA TUSTIN,CA 92782

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ACRS FROM 4229 CANOGA DRIVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner appeals on the ground that his partner, Mr. DiMarco, was sent the first notice, although he had died two years earlier. The Fire Department record does not show return mail, but does show evidence of June 15, 2012, a phone call was done before the second inspection in which the owner requested more time.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

11


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: NAZEMI,MARTHA P TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 3921 CODY RD SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403

SITUS ADDRESS: 3921 CODY RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner denies having received the first notice, but acknowledges having received the second. The Fire Department record shows returned mail, and the owner says that she contacted the Department immediately on receipt of the second notice.



0.00 Non-compliance inspection fee is assessed.

PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, as there seems to be doubt about the mail service. Total assessment due is $0.00.

12


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: MCLAUGHLIN,LOUIS A TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 2960 LAKERIDGE DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90068

SITUS ADDRESS: VL E/O 2960 LAKERIDGE DR.


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST

The owner claims that an unnamed officer said that the notices to clear may be disregarded. No further detail may be gleaned from this rather illegible letter.


� First Inspection performed on May 24, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 13, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The noncompliance fee of $312.00 should be imposed, on the basis of the evidence presented here. The Fire Department has satisfied its due process obligations. Total assessment due is $312.00.

13


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: FOWER,FRANK

MAILING ADDRESS: 10832 WRIGHTWOOD LN STUDIO CITY, CA 91604

SITUS ADDRESS: 10832 WRIGHTWOOD LN


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner reports that he is embroiled in a legal dispute with a neighbor, who harasses him by calling the Fire Department to complain about his yard. The owner adds that the Fire Departments Inspector told him that the yard is the cleanest yard which he had seen.


� First Inspection performed on July 19, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 19, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 21, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Although the owners’ legal dispute is regrettable, the Fire Departments record reflects multiple inspections, and non-compliance as of the second inspection on September 19, 2012. The noncompliance fee of $312.00 should be imposed on this evidence. Total assessment due is $312.00.

14


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BAZIKIAN,RAFIK

MAILING ADDRESS: 8586 LA TUNA CANYON RD SUN VALLEY CA 91352

SITUS ADDRESS: 8586 LA TUNA CANYON RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owners cost of clearance and administrative fees were waived, and the owner asks the same of the non-compliance fee. The owner provides evidence of an independent contractors hiring shortly after the time of the second inspection on September 17, 2012.


� First Inspection performed on May 21, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 17, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on October 11, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 non-compliance fee should be imposed, as warranted on these facts. Total assessment due is $312.00.

15


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: VOSKANYAN,VARDUHI

MAILING ADDRESS: 8460 SPRINGFORD DR SUN VALLEY, CA 91352

SITUS ADDRESS: 8460 SPRINGFORD DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner requests reconsideration of the fee, on the grounds that the owner believed the property was cleaned enough to pass the inspection. The Fire Departments record reflects a second inspection, and noncompliance, as of September 28, 2012, although work was performed according to the owner on or by September 20, 2012.


� First Inspection performed on May 9, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 28, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on October 11, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The noncompliance fee of $312.00 should be imposed, as the property was not in compliance as of the date of the second inspection, notwithstanding the owners’ good-faith belief to the contrary. Total assessment due is $312.00.

16


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BURKE,WILLIAM J AND DIANA L

MAILING ADDRESS: 10157 SULLY DR SUN VALLEY, CA 91352

SITUS ADDRESS: 10157 SULLY DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner acknowledges receipt of the first notice, and says that she hired a group to clear the brush, but that they did not appear. Then she called and left a voicemail message for the Inspector, and presumed all had been handled adequately until the invoice came. The owner adds that her sprinklers may have advance the growth of brush.


� First Inspection performed on October 5, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 31, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 26, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed, as the Fire Department satisfied due process in its notification and abatement efforts. Total assessment due is $312.00.

17


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ARREOLA,JO ANN

MAILING ADDRESS: 13171 SAYRE ST SYLMAR CA 91342

SITUS ADDRESS: 13171 SAYRE ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner does not address service, the existence of the hazard, or the cost. He states that he is low income, was being treated for prostate cancer, and spoke with an unidentified Fire Department Inspector, who told him that the parcel was in compliance. No CBO was issued, and in fact the record owner is a Ms. Arreola, not the writer of this appeal.


� First Inspection performed on May 23, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 27, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on September 21, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The owner does not state that he was unable to address the brush clearance issue in 2012, notwithstanding his hardship claims. Your Hearing Officer is able to request medical and financial records to support these claims, and of course the claim of a telephonic approval by an unnamed Inspector is unpersuasive. Nevertheless, because of the hardship, the $312.00 noncompliance fee may be waived in this case. Total assessment due is $0.00.

18


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: MIRSKY,STANTON A CO TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 13202 SAYRE ST SYLMAR CA 91342

SITUS ADDRESS: 13202 SAYRE ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner, who is handicapped, says that the Inspector was victimized by an optical illusion, in that (from the street) the branches seem closer to the house than they are in fact. The owner writes also that he received a letter of approval.


� First Inspection performed on May 23, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 27, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on October 25, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department record shows diligence by the owner, in that he called to request guidance. But the property remained non-compliant at the reinspection due date. Total assessment due is $312.00.

19


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: GALUSTIAN,ROMEO AND SHIVA

MAILING ADDRESS: 11421 CLYBOURN AVE SYLMAR, CA 91342

SITUS ADDRESS: 11421 CLYBOURN AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner denies having received any notices. He says that he was in contact with Inspector Bernal at least five times during the process.


� First Inspection performed on July 23, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 18, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Departments record, which does not reflect any returned mail, does have evidence the owners harassing telephone call to the Brush Clearance Inspector. Total assessment due is $312.00.

20


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ANDRADE,JOSEPH

MAILING ADDRESS: 9970 WHEATLAND AVE SUNLAND CA 91040

SITUS ADDRESS: 9970 WHEATLAND AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes that the notices were mailed to an incorrect address, and that the correct address has been in place only since November 6, 2012. Mr. Andrade called the Inspector to confirm his compliance due date, on November 26, 2012, but was told that the second inspection had been performed on that day, which was the compliance date as well.


� First Inspection performed on November 6, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on November 26, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Although the hazard required abatement, and although posting is a legal form of notice, your Hearing Officer recommends that this noncompliance fee be waived. The Inspector writes that he told Mr. Andrade he would send the first notice again, but this does not appear to have reached him; and the totality of the circumstances warrant this waiver. Total assessment due is $0.00.

21


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KO,KACEY G AND KYONGHO S

MAILING ADDRESS: 9232 ELBEN AVE LA TUNA CYN, CA 91352

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L ADJ. TO END OF ELBEN PLACE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellants had not complied on the second inspection November 6, 2012, at which time the noncompliance automatically attached.


� First Inspection performed on May 16, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on November 6, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312. Noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department made all inspection appearances and mailed and posted all notices as legally required, affording the Appellant due process. No notices were returned to the Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance fee. Total assessment due is $312.00.

22


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: MCMURREY,FRANK I

MAILING ADDRESS: 10826 OWENS PL TUJUNGA, CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 10826 OWENS PL


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant received notice of noncompliance and called the Inspector. Inspector went out to the property on the second inspection on September 4, 2012, and attached red tag to front door as property was still in noncompliance which automatically generated the noncompliance fee.


� First Inspection performed on July 6, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 4, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 8, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the assessed noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The total amount due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

23


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: DAY STREET LP

MAILING ADDRESS: 7843 LANKERSHIM BLVD NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NORTH OF 7650 DAY ST.


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner, L.A. Family Housing, is a private, non-profit entity, engaged in the work of assisting families’ transition from homelessness. The subject property was leased to the owners’ landscape maintenance company, who agreed to keep the ground in good repair, and who performed brush clearance in 2012. The subject work was performed in October 2012, but not until after noncompliance was found on a second inspection on October 5, 2012. In paragraph 16 of the lease, the tenant maintenance company promised to indemnify the owner against any and all claims or assertions of any kind and nature.


� First Inspection performed on August 20, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 5, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 16, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Your Hearing Officer commends the owner for its good work. But the Fire Department must fulfill its mission too; and the owner cannot delegate its brush clearance responsibilities to the former tenant, although it may well have secured an ability to seek indemnification now for the noncompliance fee of $312.00, which should be imposed. Your Hearing Officer expresses no legal opinion on that point, although the cited paragraph may be of interest. Total assessment due is $312.00.

24


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: DAY STREET LP

MAILING ADDRESS: 7843 LANKERSHIM BLVD NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L LOT NORTH OF 7640 DAY ST.


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner, L.A. Family Housing, is a private, non-profit entity, engaged in the work of assisting families’ transition from homelessness. The subject property was leased to the

�owner s landscape maintenance company, who agreed to keep the ground in good repair, and who performed brush clearance in 2012. The subject work was performed in October 2012, but not until after noncompliance was found on a second inspection on October 5, 2012. In paragraph 16 of the lease, the tenant maintenance company promised to indemnify the owner against any and all claims or assertions of any kind and nature.


� First Inspection performed on August 20, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 5, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 16, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Your Hearing Officer commends the owner for its good work. But the Fire Department must fulfill its mission too; and the owner cannot delegate its brush clearance responsibilities to the former tenant, although it may well have secured an ability to seek indemnification now for the noncompliance fee of $312.00, which should be imposed. Your Hearing Officer expresses no legal opinion on that point, although the cited paragraph may be of interest. Total assessment due is $312.00.

25


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ANR LT PARTNERS CAPITAL 1 LLC

MAILING ADDRESS: 10702 HATHAWAY DR STE 1 SANTA FE SPRINGS CA 90670

SITUS ADDRESS: 7848 MCGROARTY ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST By written appeal, there were different owners, bank and new owner on the dates of the individual notices. Therefore, no one received proper notification; proper due process was not afforded to anyone.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The non compliance fee is therefore waived. The total amount due is $0.00 Total assessment due is $0.00.

26


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: FLS REALTY LLC

MAILING ADDRESS: 7970 GLENTIES LN SUNLAND CA 91040

SITUS ADDRESS: 7970 GLENTIES LN


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant claims he is still the owner of the house. He received all notices and on the second inspection the property was red tagged and the noncompliance fee automatically attached.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the assessed noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Noncompliance fee is confirmed, as appellant was living in the house and still is the owner at the time of noncompliance. The total amount due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

27


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BOGHOZIAN, TALOU

MAILING ADDRESS: 2738 MONTROSE AVE UNIT 2 MONTROSE CA 91020 0000

SITUS ADDRESS: VAC PAR 133 N/O EDISON'S FENCE F


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner states that she did not receive the notices, because although she has tried to change her address with the County Assessor multiple times, that office has not complied with her request. The Fire Department file notes indicate that the owner did not even receive her property tax bill.


� First Inspection performed on May 28, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 19, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on August 2, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The noncompliance fee of $312.00 should be waived in this case. Total assessment due is $0.00.

28


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KASPARIAN,SONIA

MAILING ADDRESS: 5303 NE 29TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97211

SITUS ADDRESS: 9448 REVERIE ROAD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims not to have received the first notice, as her tenant did not timely provide it. Some mail appears to have been returned. The owner also states that the fee would exceed her monthly income, although she provides no evidence.


� First Inspection performed on May 29, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 19, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on September 11, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, in light of the apparent service issue. Total assessment due is $0.00.

29


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KASPARIAN,SONIA

MAILING ADDRESS: 5303 NE 29TH AVE PORTLAND OR 97211

SITUS ADDRESS: V/ PARCEL ADJ. TO S/OF 9458 REVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims not to have received the first notice, as her tenant did not timely provide it. Some mail appears to have been returned. The owner also states that the fee would exceed her monthly income, although she provides no evidence.


� First Inspection performed on May 29, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 19, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on September 11, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, in light of the apparent service issue. Total assessment due is $0.00.

30


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: PLASENCIA,REUBEN D

MAILING ADDRESS: 7474 VALAHO DR TUJUNGA CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 7474 VALAHO DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes essentially that he did not know that he had to cut the trees in a manner compliant with the law, and which the Inspector explained to him.


� First Inspection performed on May 26, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 16, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on October 5, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

31


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: MORGAN, KANEEN P

MAILING ADDRESS: 9595 HILLHAVEN AVE TUJUNGA, CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: Vacant Lot


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner, a Los Angeles County Fire Department firefighter, purchased the property in July 2012, following the first inspection and notice. The file notes indicated that the previous owner should bear responsibility. The current owner denies having learned of the second inspection.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, in light of the change of ownership, and of the notice question. Total assessment due is $0.00.

32


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BASILE, LENA A

MAILING ADDRESS: 10426 HELENDALE AVE TUJUNGA, CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 9833 COMMERCE AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner denies having received the first notice, and states that she had clearance performed promptly on learning of the posting in August 2012. The owner adds that it is not fair to impose two fees, merely because the Commerce home lies on a double lot.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Waive the $312.00 noncompliance fee for APN 2563041002, but not for 256 3041001. Although the owner denies receipt, the first mailing was not returned. However, the owner appears to have acted promptly to abate the hazard, upon notification via the posting. Total assessment due is $312.00.

33


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BASILE, LENA A

MAILING ADDRESS: 10426 HELENDALE AVE TUJUNGA, CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 9833 COMMERCE AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner denies having received the first notice, and states that she had clearance performed promptly on learning of the posting in August 2012. The owner adds that it is not fair to impose two fees, merely because the Commerce home lies on a double lot.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Waive the $312.00 noncompliance fee for APN 2563041002, but not for 256 3041001. Although the owner denies receipt, the first mailing was not returned. However, the owner appears to have acted promptly to abate the hazard, upon notification via the posting. Total assessment due is $0.00.

34


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KIM,NAMHOON

MAILING ADDRESS: 7000 SAINT ESTABAN ST TUJUNGA CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 7000 SAINT ESTABAN ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Appellant claims he had workers cut the trees on June 1, 2012, and August 22, 2012. However when the Fire Department Inspector went to the property for the second inspection and red tagging on August 20, 2012, the trees were still there and the tall brush was hazardous. Since the property was in noncompliance on the second inspection as stated above the noncompliance fee automatically attached.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the noncompliance fee as assessed. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Noncompliance fee is confirmed. The total amount due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

35


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KRISHNAN,R AND GEETHA TRS

MAILING ADDRESS: 3085 MIDDLEFIELD RD APT 7 PALO ALTO, CA 94306

SITUS ADDRESS: 10510 SILVERTON AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims that the tenant did not convey notices timely, and some mail appears to have been returned.


� First Inspection performed on June 20, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 27, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on September 13, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Given the apparent notice failure, the $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived. Total assessment due is $0.00.

36


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ROHAN,TIM

MAILING ADDRESS: 2914 HERMOSA AVE LA CRESCENTA, CA 91214

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/E OF 6270 GYRAL DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner reports that he has maintained his brush annually, using an approved contractor. It would be a hardship for him to pay this, and he believes that the Fire Inspector should be able and willing to meet with him during the inspections. The owner believes also that the inspection process is too subjective.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312. Noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department made all inspection appearances and mailed and posted all notices as legally required, affording the Appellant due process. No notices were returned to the Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance fee. The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fees should be imposed on all parcels. Total assessment due is $312.00.

37


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ROHAN,TIM




SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner reports that he has maintained his brush annually, using an approved contractor. It would be a hardship for him to pay this, and he believes that Fire Inspectors should be able and willing to meet with him during the inspections. The owner believes also that the inspection process is too subjective.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fees should be imposed on all parcels. Total assessment due is $312.00.

38


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ROHAN,TIM








PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fees should be imposed on all parcels. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and it is unreasonable for Inspectors to make personal visits as to every parcel in the “Very High Fire Severity Zone”. Total assessment due is $312.00.

39


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: ROHAN,TIM


SITUS ADDRESS: V/L S/E 6270 GYRAL DR






PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fees should be imposed on all parcels. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and it is unreasonable for Inspectors to make personal visits as to every parcel in the “Very High Fire Severity Zone”. Total assessment due is $312.00.

40


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BARAKEZYAN,NORIK

MAILING ADDRESS: 10014 AMANITA AVE TUJUNGA CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 10014 AMANITA AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner acknowledges having received the first notice, but says that this is a corner lot where strangers leave trash, and that a portion of the perimeter of the lot is not his property.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed, as the Fire Department fulfilled its due process obligations, while abating this hazard. Total assessment due is $312.00.

41


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SAHAKIAN,SAHAK AND MARIAM

MAILING ADDRESS: 6152 DAY ST TUJUNGA CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 6152 DAY ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner states that clearance was performed on receipt of the notice, and that this is a small lot.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Departments mail was correctly addressed and not returned, thus satisfying due process. Total assessment due is $312.00.

42


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SHAHVERDI,ANDEREH

MAILING ADDRESS: 9400 TRUE KNOLL DR TUJUNGA, CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 9400 TRUE KNOLL DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner states simply that the work was done in September 2012, and denies having received notices.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed, as the owner offers no evidence to rebut the presumption that the mailed notices did arrive as addressed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

43


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KEYLLIAN,NIRVA AND ARA

MAILING ADDRESS: 9248 LA SHELL DR TUJUNGA, CA 91042

SITUS ADDRESS: 9248 LA SHELL DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared at the hearing he admitted he had not cleared the property at the Fire Inspectors second inspection and red tagging, at which time the noncompliance fee automatically attached.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the assessed noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Noncompliance fee is confirmed. The total amount due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

44


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: GALVAN,MARIA

MAILING ADDRESS: 13965 CANDLEWOOD DR SYLMAR, CA 91342

SITUS ADDRESS: 13965 CANDLEWOOD DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes that he completed the brush clearance in April 2012.


� First Inspection performed on June 5, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 12, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee is warranted and should be imposed. The property remained non-compliant as of the second inspection date, and due process was satisfied in the notices. Total assessment due is $312.00.

45


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SOLIEMANZADEH,FARHAD AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 22817 VENTURA BLVD 840 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364

SITUS ADDRESS: 17261 BOSWELL PL


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant claimed squatters moved into the house and wouldn’t let the gardener clean, however the city contractors had no problem when cleaning property. The appellant had not complied on the date of the second inspection, October 18, 2012, at which time the noncompliance fee automatically attached.


� First Inspection performed on May 28, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 18, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the assessed noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Noncompliance fee is confirmed. The total amount due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

46


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: PARK,YONG J

MAILING ADDRESS: 19721 EAGLE RIDGE LN NORTHRIDGE, CA 91326

SITUS ADDRESS: 19721 EAGLE RIDGE LN


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner does not appear to deny having received the notices, but says that he telephoned the Brush Clearance Unit in October, to report that the clearance would be performed.


� First Inspection performed on June 4, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 18, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department gave sufficient notice to satisfy due process. Total assessment due is $312.00.

47


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SHOHET,HOUSHANG C

MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 64674 LOS ANGELES CA 90064

SITUS ADDRESS: 21048 NASHVILLE ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The appellant claims he cleared his property but gave no dates or pictures as proof.


� First Inspection performed on June 6, 2011 � Second Inspection performed on August 16, 2011 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirmed the assessed Noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices as legally required. No notices were returned to the Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance Fee. The total assessment due is $312.00 Total assessment due is $312.00.

48


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: TERZIAN,MICHAEL V AND KARIN C

MAILING ADDRESS: 11717 SEMINOLE CIR NORTHRIDGE, CA 91326

SITUS ADDRESS: 11717 SEMINOLE CIR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellants had not complied on date of second inspection October 18, 2012, at which time the noncompliance automatically attached.


� First Inspection performed on June 4, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 18, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection;

therefore, a $312.00 Non-compliance inspection fee is assessed.

PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the assessed noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Noncompliance fee is confirmed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

49


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: MOUSIKI,LIDA AND BENNY

MAILING ADDRESS: 313 S KENTER AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90049 0000

SITUS ADDRESS: 11000 CHALON RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims both that no notices arrived, and that the land in question belongs to the City, and not to him. Indeed, the owner claims that he had cleaned it in the past, although he only purchased this property in October 2012.


� First Inspection performed on July 21, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on December 11, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Fire Department record reveals the hazard, but also that mail was returned. The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived. Total assessment due is $0.00.

50


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SOROUDI,SHAHRAM AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 1049 CHANTILLY RD LOS ANGELES CA 90077 0000

SITUS ADDRESS: 1049 CHANTILLY RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner states that he bought the property in early 2012, but had to leave during construction, and was gone for about two and a half months. The owner denies having received the second notice of noncompliance, but acknowledges receipt of the first, and the Fire Department record reveals no returned mail.


� First Inspection performed on May 13, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 17, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 13, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Fire Department record shows a change of address in May 2012, and the owner writes that he did not know of the problem (through written notice) until November, after the subject inspection. The noncompliance fee of $312.00 should be waived. Total assessment due is $0.00.

51


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SOLEIMANI,MAHSHID

MAILING ADDRESS: 10122 EMPYREAN WAY 104 LOS ANGELES CA 90067

SITUS ADDRESS: 1298 STRADELLA RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant stated that she did not receive any of the Notices of Noncompliance as a family member resides at property location and failed to forward the mailed notices to her. The Appellant also stated that she was not clear of what to do and had difficulties finding a qualified contractor at a reasonable price to do the work.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312.00 Noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department made all inspection appearances and mailed and posted all notices as legally required, affording the Appellant due process. No notices were returned to Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance Fee. Total assessment due is $312.00.

52


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SOLEIMANI,MAHSHID

MAILING ADDRESS: 10122 EMPYREAN WAY 104 LOS ANGELES CA 90067

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NORTH OF 1298 STRADELLA RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant stated that she did not receive any of the Notices of Noncompliance as a family member resides at property location and failed to forward the mailed notices to her. The Appellant also stated that she was not clear of what to do and had difficulties finding a qualified contractor at a reasonable price to do the work.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312.00 Noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department made all inspection appearances and mailed and posted all notices as legally required, affording the Appellant due process. No notices were returned to Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance fee. Total assessment due is $312.00

53


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KHANIAN,JOSEPH TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 9816 MILLBORO PL BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210

SITUS ADDRESS: 9816 MILLBORO PL


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner describes a period of economic and health challenges for the time including 2012, and asks that these be considered, in addition to the fact of his efforts to comply with the brush clearance requirements via his own work




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Fire Department met its due process obligations, and the hazard existed and required abatement. Your Hearing Officer regrets the owner’s travails, but cannot recommend more than a limited reduction in the proposed noncompliance fee, which in his judgment should be imposed in the sum of $156.00. Total assessment due is $156.00.

54


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: KOPELEVICH,MAX AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 16939 BOLLINGER DR PACIFIC PLSDS, CA 90272

SITUS ADDRESS: 16939 BOLLINGER DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes that he received a first notice in May 2012, with a June compliance date; performed work; and received a CBO as of June 9, 2012, shortly after the original date. Then the owner received a second notice, reflecting the same original inspection date of May. The Inspector gave additional time to comply with the second notice, and the Inspector is said to have confirmed timely compliance with the second notice via telephone.


� First Inspection performed on May 12, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 5, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on December 1, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived. Certainly brush clearance is a year-round responsibility, and the June 9, 2013, CBO does not constitute a release from that responsibility for all time. But the record does reflect a CBO following the first inspection, and the owner appears to have acted diligently to comply with both notices. Total assessment due is $0.00.

55


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: LEIBOWITZ,MARK S TR

MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 571690 TARZANA CA 91357

SITUS ADDRESS: 12272 SKY LN


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner writes that the brush clearance notices were received and acted upon to the letter.


� First Inspection performed on May 18, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 25, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on December 4, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department satisfied its obligation to afford due process, and notwithstanding the owner belief to the contrary, the property was not in compliance when inspected for a second time in October. Total assessment due is $312.00.

56


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: HU,JING L AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 2860 BADAU AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90032

SITUS ADDRESS: 2860 BUDAU AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner reports that this is the first home she has owned in the United States, and the Fire Department record demonstrates that ownership changed in July 2012 and also that the Inspector called the owner shortly after the second inspection, to report the need for more work. The owner denies having received the first notice, and adds that the payment would impose a hardship, without offering any evidence for that claim.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, given the apparent change of ownership, and the owners claim not to have received the first notice. Total assessment due is $0.00.

57


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: GALLEGO,KRISTAL L

MAILING ADDRESS: 1107 FAIR OAKS AVE 472 SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030

SITUS ADDRESS: 4519 LOWELL AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner denies having received the initial notice, adding that she acted to comply with the second. She believes that her property, which borders the City’s neighbor, South Pasadena, may be misconstrued to include South Pasadena property, for which she is not responsible.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed. Your Hearing Officer is satisfied that although the owner has been diligent, the owner may not recognize that even plants growing on adjacent property can create a fire hazard on her own if allowed to grow on to your property, and that the law requires her to abate that danger as well. Moreover, the Fire Department satisfied due process, in having provided the notices received. Total assessment due is $312.00.

58


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: LEE,JASPER C AND BING G

MAILING ADDRESS: 6336 MONTEREY RD LOS ANGELES CA 90042

SITUS ADDRESS: 6336 MONTEREY RD


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims not to have received the initial notice and the Fire Department record reveals a change of ownership, and of address, as of May 2012. The prior owner wrote the Brush Clearance Unit to disclaim further ownership of the property, and the owner writes that the Inspector said that the first notice was not resent.


� First Inspection performed on May 21, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on July 11, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be waived, in light of the change of ownership. Total assessment due is $0.00.

59


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: YASUI,TODD AND ELIF TR

MAILING ADDRESS: 3923 CLAYTON AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90027

SITUS ADDRESS: 3923 CLAYTON AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The file contains no written explanation of the appeal. The separate brush clearance appeal presented issues of access, of selective enforcement, and of cost.


� First Inspection performed on June 5, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on September 14, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed, as the hazard was not abated, and as the Fire Department complied with due process. Total assessment due is $312.00.

60


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: CAO,ALFIE AND AMY

MAILING ADDRESS: 735 AMERICAN PL LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 715 ISABEL ST


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims not to have received mailed notices, and the Fire Departments record reveals mail returned from two different addresses. The owner states that he attempts to perform the clearance himself.


� First Inspection performed on August 6, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 31, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fees for both parcels should be waived, given the evident mailing issue. Total assessment due is $0.00.

61


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: CAO,ALFIE AND AMY

MAILING ADDRESS: 735 AMERICAN PL LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L E/OF 723 & 715 ISABEL


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner claims not to have received mailed notices, and the Fire Departments record reveals mail returned from two different addresses. The owner states that he attempts to perform the clearance himself.


� First Inspection performed on August 6, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 31, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed $312.00 noncompliance fees for both parcels should be waived, given the evident mailing issue. Total assessment due is $0.00.

62


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SOLIS,MONICA I

MAILING ADDRESS: 12255 EL DORADO AVE SYLMAR, CA 91342

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L EAST OF 643 ISABEL ST

ASSESSSOR'S ID NO: 5452016024

SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner does not deny having received the notices, but explains that her brother and son performed the work, and that she thought they had done so adequately. The owner reports also that she is a single mother who has not worked for a year, and that this fee would impose a genuine hardship.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Your Hearing Officer regrets the owner’s unemployment, although he notes that the owner submitted no evidence to support her claim. In addition, the Fire Department satisfied due process. On balance, your Hearing Officer recommends that the noncompliance fee be imposed in the sum of $100.00. Total assessment due is $100.00.

63


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: VIZCARRA,GUILERMO

MAILING ADDRESS: 33050 OLIVE ST LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L SOUTH OF 988 AVE 37


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The Appellant appeared and stated that he had cut trees down in 2011, however the noncompliance is sited for the brush on the property which was a fire hazard needing clearance. The Appellant had not complied on the second inspection by the Fire Inspector at which time the noncompliance fee automatically attached.


� First Inspection performed on October 9, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on November 9, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Confirm the assessed noncompliance fee. The Fire Inspector made all appearances to the property and mailed and posted all notices required by law. Affording the appellant due process, no mail was returned. The Appellant did not give sufficient evidence to waive the Noncompliance fee. The Noncompliance fee is confirmed. The total amount due is $352.00. Total assessment due is $312.00.

64


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SALAME,FRANK

MAILING ADDRESS: 1124 E DORAN ST APT A GLENDALE CA 91206

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L 71FT SOUTH OF 3666 DIVISION


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner also owns the three adjacent lots, and believes that this lot was in compliance as were his others. He inspected the lots personally, and addressed some growth on the subject parcel; but he thinks that his neighbor’s failure to clear has affected this treatment of his property.


� First Inspection performed on May 14, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 16, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on November 1, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Although the owner does not describe a vast hazard, he acknowledges having performed some additional work on this parcel following his own inspection. The Fire Department has satisfied due process. On balance, the noncompliance fee may be reduced to $156.00. Total assessment due is $156.00.

65


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: SANTANA INVESTORS LLC

MAILING ADDRESS: 7320 FIRESTONE BLVD 202 DOWNEY, CA 90241

SITUS ADDRESS: 1630 BRIDGEPORT DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owners appeal seems to address the 2013 brush clearance year. As to 2012, no mail seems to have been returned, although the owner states that the Matador Street address of record is not theirs. Nevertheless, the written appeal simply does not address the year in issue.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The $312.00 noncompliance fee should be imposed, as the Fire Department satisfied due process in abating the hazard, and in giving notification. Total assessment due is $312.00.

66


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: BISHOP,DAVID AND CAROL TRS

MAILING ADDRESS: 1933 CARMEN AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90068

SITUS ADDRESS: VL W OF 1454 RANDALL CT


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner acknowledges having received notices, but explains that he has delegated to his neighbor the task of performing and overseeing this brush clearance. The neighbor writes to say that he did perform the clearance just before the second inspection, and that both he and the owner believed the lot to be in compliance. The neighbor thinks also that the Inspector may have abated a hazard on adjoining property.


� First Inspection performed on July 24, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 15, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on August 28, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION While commending the owner and his neighbor for their efforts, the Fire Departments Inspector clearly felt the parcel to remain noncompliant as of the date of the second inspection. For this reason, your Hearing Officer recommends that the $312.00 noncompliance fee be imposed. Total assessment due is $312.00.

67


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: TANGLE LLC

MAILING ADDRESS: 1416 FAIRBANKS PL LOS ANGELES CA 90026

SITUS ADDRESS: V/L NEXT TO 448 MUSEUM DR


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST Tangle LLC filed a written Appeal to protest the Noncompliance Fee assessed against their property.




PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed Noncompliance assessment fee against your property has been waived. The Fire Department record reflects that there was some returned mail. The Fire Department record reflects that the initial Notices of violation were served to the prior owner. Therefore the appellant did not get full due process. Therefore the recommendation is to waive the Noncompliance fee. The total assessment due is $0.00. Total assessment due is $0.00.

68


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: NAYE,CHARLES F

MAILING ADDRESS: 4551 SAN ANDREAS AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

SITUS ADDRESS: 4551 SAN ANDREAS AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner, who had a heart attack in 2009, states that work, was performed as requested by the notices, and that the company which performed it offers a guarantee.


� First Inspection performed on August 31, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on October 1, 2012 � Third Inspection performed on October 2, 2012 � Property was found to be in non-compliance upon second inspection; therefore, a


PROPOSED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION Notwithstanding the owner’s effort, evidently, the Inspector found the property to remain noncompliant at the second inspection. Confirm the Noncompliance fee. The Fire Department satisfied due process, and the $312. Noncompliance fee should be imposed. The Fire Department made all inspection appearances and mailed and posted all notices as legally required, affording the Appellant due process. No notices were returned to the Department. The Appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to waive the Noncompliance fee. Total assessment due is $312.00.

69


WRITTEN APPEALS


NAME: 3P PROPERTIES LLC AND

MAILING ADDRESS: 23975 PARK SORRENTO STE 110 CALABASAS, CA 91302

SITUS ADDRESS: 801 CYNTHIA AVE


SUBSTANCE OF PROTEST The owner offers a grant deed showing change of ownership in March or April of 2012, although the owner says it assumed ownership in October. In either event, the Fire Department record demonstrates that mail was returned.


� First Inspection performed on May 12, 2012 � Second Inspection performed on August 24, 2012 � Property was

Documents

PRESIDENT - Los Angelesens.lacity.org/.../lafdlafdreport186483500_08012013.pdf · 2013. 8. 1. · board of fire commissioners ____ genethia hudley-hayes president casimiro u. tolentino