Published by City Cerk February 14, 2026
REDACTED
(Johnson to Power Property Management Inc. Los Angeles)
You claim that your court filed December 18th 2025 document included the mention of the
disabled placard plates as well as requests for handicapped parking stall. The handicapped
parking stall disabled plates notice did not occur until January 25th 2026 and forwarded to you around February 5th 2026. Since it could not be included in the hearing on other matters, the disabled placards plate notice of Jan. 25. 2026 constitutes new evidence.
You claim that the city government code enforcement inspected the intercom system at
subject address and determined that the intercom system is working. That is not true. The
notice from code enforcement said that the system was not working and subject to repair. The
email after that from Steven Harrison to you said that he was accepting your explanation that
the system had been upgraded, however neither Stephen Harrison and nor anyone else from
code enforcement actually inspected the AKUVOX on the outside of the building to see if it was
working and the code enforcement employees did not view the video that I supplied that the
intercom system is not working, and finally the city employees did not inspect the unit to see if there is an indoor interface or indoor monitor to connect to the AKUVOX, monitor as required by law . On what date do you feel that the city inspected the unit to determine the wired or Wi-Fi connection to AKUVOX?
As regards the tandem parking stall requested and also the handicapped stall requested.
You seem to be confused. The request for the tandem parking stall which is a monthly request
(see endorsed rent checks) concerning moving myself and my roommate two cars from the
single car stall to a tandem two car stall.
In that explanation, I am requesting a stall that will accommodate two cars, I am not
requesting parking for three cars. The most recent request for the handicap stall which would
be for a single car is , without waiving any rights, could possibly be considered to be an
alternative to the request for the tandem parking stall. I would accept the handicap stall for
myself, and my roommate would remain in stall number eight. Or instead of the handicap
parking stall, we would be assigned a tandem parking stall, which we would provide for two
cars.The end result is that I am not asking for parking for three cars as you alleged. Your
statement and your letter is, with regard to the parking, “owner is agreeable to rent you an
extra tandem parking space at the rate of $150 per month.” Further you say ” we will assure
your parking spaces, both of them are the closest space available to your unit.” Thus I’m not
asking for $150 space. I’m asking to be switched from single parking space to tandem two
cars space. As I have stated numerous times, the rent agreement does not provide for the
charge of $150 for any parking on the property. I’m not asking for two spaces as in “both” as
your letter alleges. All rights reserved.
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 