* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] CALL MEETING ORDER, AND, UH, ASK THE CLERK FOR CHAIRMAN CHARLES WHITEHEAD. YES. VICE CHAIRMAN HENRY TOVAR. HERE. BOARD MEMBER ETHEL POWERS. BOARD MEMBER F FRANK ESPARZA. HERE. BOARD MEMBER STEVE ASIN. HERE. BOARD MEMBER JANET LIPSON. HERE. BOARD MEMBER ISMA ENRIQUEZ. PRESENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. YOU, UH, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY. I JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. I WAS READY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM, UH, DECEMBER 11TH, 2020? I SO MOVE. I SECOND. OKAY. YOU HAVE A VOTE. UH, AND CHAIRMAN BEFORE, GO AHEAD. UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION ON THE SCRIPT, UM, STATES WHERE WE WOULD ASK YOU TO ASK FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT. UM, THAT'S SOMETHING NEW TO YOUR SCRIPT, JUST TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP. UM, BUT WE'LL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE LINE UP FRONT MICROPHONE OR JUST, UH, LET US KNOW. AND SPACE FOR, I'VE SEEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE MINUTES. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE MINUTES. THE MINUTES. OKAY. NONE. OKAY. I'LL TAKE ROLE ON THAT. CHAIRMAN. CHARLES WHITEHEAD. VICE CHAIRMAN. HENRY? YES. I'M SORRY. VICE CHAIRMAN HENRY TOVA. YES. MS. ET ETHEL POWERS. BOARD MEMBER FRANK ESPARZA? YES. BOARD MEMBER STEVE ASIN. HERE. BOARD MEMBER JANET LIPSON? YES. BOARD MEMBER ESMA ENRIQUE? YES. THANK YOU. THE MINUTES HAVE PASSED. THANK YOU. I'LL READ THE STATEMENT HERE. IT SAYS THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEAL AND CONDEMNATION IS ESTABLISHED BY LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18 POINT 10.020 TO PROVIDE A FORM TO THE, UH, FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS TO ABATE SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS OF CONSTITUTING PUBLIC HEARING. THE BOARD ALSO ACTS AS HEARING OFFICERS AND CONDUCTS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR APPEAL, ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND APPEALS OF DISABLED ACCESS CASES. THE BOARD CONDUCTS A HEARING ACCORDANCE TO ROBERT DECIDED THE COURT WILL READ THE CASE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE, THEN COME TO THE PODIUM. STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CASE REPORT AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME, THE OWNER OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE MAY ADDRESS THE, EXCUSE ME, MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD SHOULD YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE. HAVE, UH, I SWEARING OF THE WITNESSES . IT IS TIME NOW TIME FOR SWEARING OF WITNESSES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. I DO. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE'LL GO TO AGENDA ONE. OKAY. UM, SO BEFORE, UH, WE GO TO AGENDA, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. CASE NUMBER ONE THING FOR ME HERE, SO, OH, OKAY. CASE NUMBER VL 0 2 6 DASH ZERO THREE DASH 24 1 5 5 1 THROUGH ONE THROUGH SIX FIVE SANTA FE AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. CHRIS JOAR, OWNER CE CASE NUMBER CEVL [00:05:01] 2 8 9 1 3 8. AND C-E-V-V-L 2 8 9 1 3 9. VACANT LOT FEES APPEAL CASE. SO STAFF PLEASE. ITEM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, PLEASE. ARE MAISHA DO WE, DO WE ACTUALLY DO A MOTION TO HEAR THE, THAT'S ROBERT'S RULES. OKAY. WHILE I MOVE THAT WE HEAR THIS CASE. THANK YOU. AND A SECOND. SECOND. I SECOND. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FOR, EXCUSE ME. CHAIRMAN TO, I'LL TAKE A ROLL ON THAT. CHAIRMAN CHARLES WHITEHEAD. FIRST WE GOTTA HEAR THE PRESENTATION FIRST. FIRST WE'LL HEAR THE PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL TAKE OUR VOTE. OKAY. UH, PRESENT YOUR, UH, CITY RECOMMENDATION ON THE, UH, ITEM PLEASE. OKAY. MR. UH, CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I DO THE RECOMMENDATION, I'M GOING TO BE READING IN A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF THE ORDINANCE SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE THE ORDINANCE CAME FROM AND SO FORTH FOR ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS AND SO FORTH, UH, THAT ARE NEW TO THE BOARD, AS WELL AS HAVE THE ORDINANCE SINCE THESE ARE UNIQUE CASES. UM, SO JUST TO REFRESH THAT VERY EVERYONE'S MEMORY THAT HAS WENT TO IT BEFORE, SO, SO BEAR WITH ME, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LONG. SO I, THE VACANT LOT REGISTRY ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER NINE OR OCTOBER 10TH, 2017. THE ORDINANCE LONG BEACH FOR THE CODE SECTION 18.29 WAS DRAFTED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL AND REGULATES THE MAINTENANCE AND THE USE OF VACANT LOTS IN THE CITY. VACANT LOTS CAN BECOME A NUISANCE IN A COMMUNITY, IF NOT PROPERLY MONITORED AND MAINTAINED. THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LOTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A VACANT LOT AS DEFINED IN LBMC 18.9 0.070 REGISTER WITH THE LOT WITH THE CITY AND PAY A MONETARY FEE. THE VACANT MONT REGISTRY FEE, WHICH IS SEVEN $80, WAS ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL AND ENTERED INTO THE CITY'S MASTER FEE AND, UH, CHARGES SCHEDULE DURING THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS, WHICH WENT INTO EFFECT FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE IN 2017. THE FEE IS CALCULATED ONLY TO RECOVER THE COST OF STAFF TIME THAT MUST BE EXPENDED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE VACANT LOT MONETARY PROGRAM AS WELL AS SERVICES AND SUPPLIES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM. FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THIS FEE AMOUNT INCLUDE SITE INSPECTIONS, THE COST TO PREPARE AND SEND THE BILLS VIA MAIL, PERSONAL TIME TO UPDATE AND MAINTAIN THE DATABASE AND OVERSEE THE PROGRAM PROPERTY MAINTENANCE COSTS AT FULLY NONCOMPLIANT, UH, SITES AMONG OTHER COSTS. LBMC 18.29080. I STATES THAT A PROPERTY OWNER MAY DEMAND A HEARING AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES OR CHARGES OPPOSED. DEMAND MUST INCLUDE THE PROPERTY INVOLVED AND THE REASON FOR OBJECTIVITY AT THIS HEARING, THE, A BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS AND CONDEMNATION WILL HEAR THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES AND CHARGES AND EITHER CONFIRM OR MODIFY, UH, THE CHARGES. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE FULL FEE EXEMPTIONS WHEN THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED AND OPERATED FOR SPECIFIC COMMUNITY SERVING USE SUCH AS URBAN AGRICULTURAL. UM, AND THEN, UH, BUT THE VACANT LOT REGISTRY FEE OF $780 IS APPEALABLE IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FEE AMOUNT MAY BE APPEALED IF THE LOT WAS NOT IN FACT VACANT FOR THE ENTIRE 12 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. THE FEE MAY BE APPEALED IF THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP HAS CHANGED AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAILED, INDIVIDUAL MAILED THE NOTICE IS NO LONGER THE CURRENT OWNER. THE FEE MAY BE TEMPORARILY WAIVED IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF MERGING TWO LOTS AND AGREES TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS WITHIN ONE YEAR. THE FEE MAY ALSO BE WAIVED IF THE LOT IS DEEMED UNDEVELOPABLE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL HAS SET THE FEE AMOUNT OF $708 AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF THE FEE NEEDED TO AFFECT THE COST RECOVERY FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED, UH, BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF, THE, THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS PILLS AND POUND DENISES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS BASE AMOUNT UNLESS ONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED EXIST AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION, SUCH AS A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, OR IF PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PARCEL IS BEING USED FOR COMMUNITY SERVING, UH, [00:10:01] PURPOSE, OR IF THE PARTICULAR LOT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE UNDEVELOPABLE AT A SUBSEQUENT VAC MEETINGS. IN ADDITION TO THE COUNCIL ESTABLISHED YEARLY MONETARY FEE CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE FEES OR CHARGES MAY BE APPEALED, MAY BE APPEALED. CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE FEES CAN BE, UH, APPEALED IF A PROPERTY OWNER FEELS THEY ARE UNREASONABLE UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTUAL SITUATION FOR INDIVIDUAL VACANT LOTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS AND CONDEMNATIONS WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ON THIS MATTER AND DETERMINE WHETHER TO CONFIRM OR MODIFY THOSE CHARGES. AS THOSE TYPES OF APPEAL CASES ARE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, STAFF WILL PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION AS TO THE NATURE OF EACH APPEAL AND PRECISE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE, UH, BRIEF HISTORY SUMMARY OF THE BANK OF ORDINANCE. AND WE WILL, UH, PROCEED TO BEGIN THE RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. SO THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING AND DETERMINE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AT 15 51, 15 65 SANTA FE AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA MEET THE DEFINITION OF VACANT LOTS AS STATED ALONG THESE RISK CODE 18.29070 C, THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES AND UPHOLD THE ANNUAL OF THE, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. AND THAT CONCLUDES, UH, MY, UH, RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. UM, ANY, UH, BOARD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, STAFF REPORT? OKAY. MY NAME IS JEFF WEATHER OAK. I'M WITH CITY OF LONG BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT. UM, ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2017, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE AMENDING IN LONG BEACH IN WHAT CODE? BY ADDING CHAPTER 18.29, MAINTENANCE OF THE VACANT LOTS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MANUAL ADMINISTRATION ON AUGUST 14TH, 2018, CODE BUREAU MAIL NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF ALL KNOWN VACANT LOTS AS LISTED ON THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAX ACCESS RECORD. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1551 SANTA FE AVENUE AND 1565 SANTA FE AVENUE ARE, AND WERE VACANT LOTS FOR THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN 2018 AND 2024, AND ARE OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. NO EXEMPTIONS TO THE ANNUAL ADMINISTERING FEE APPLIED FOR THESE PROPERTY. ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2023, A LETTER WAS SENT INDICATING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1551 SANTA FE AVENUE AT 1565 SANTA FE AVENUE. VACANT LOSS, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA WE'RE A SUBJECT TO THE VACANT LOT PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE 18 OF TWO NINE OF THE LONG BEACH MINNESOTA CODE. AND THAT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MONITORING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE ASSESSED AND BILLED ANNUALLY ON JANUARY 19TH, 2024. VACANT LOT ADMINISTRATING THE BILLING LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS LISTED ON THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR RECORD. ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024, STAFF RECEIVED A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE VACANT LOCK MONITORING FEES. THANK YOU. NOW OF, UH, ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE, I HAVE A QUESTION. WE'RE LOOKING TO START OR ARE WE TRYING TO COLLECT, UM, UH, THIS PIECE SINCE 2018? THIS IS FOR THIS YEAR. THIS FOR JUST THIS YEAR. OCTOBER 24TH. OKAY. HAVE THEY REPAID BEFORE? YES. NO, ON THIS ONE? NO. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, BECAUSE THIS, WE WERE MADE AWARE THIS WAS A VACANT LOT, UM, I GUESS IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE WE HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT SOME OVERGROWN WEEDS, TRASH AND DEBRIS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A VACANT LOT SO THAT WE BROUGHT IT INTO THE PROGRAM THIS YEAR. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN VACANT? UM, THERE WAS A DEMO PERMIT IN 2009 FOR A SINGLE THEFT OR FOR A STRUCTURE THAT WAS DONE. I DON'T HAVE IT OFF HAND, BUT YEAH, THERE WAS 2009 AT LEAST. OKAY. BECAUSE, UH, YOUR, ON YOUR UNDER DISCUSSION ON YOUR THIRD PARTY CORRECT. THAT THEY WERE BREAKING FOR THE TIME PERIOD, 2018 AND 2024. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE WERE COLLECTING MONEY FOR ALL THOSE. YEAH, RIGHT. I, 2018 WAS WHEN THE PROGRAM BECAME, WAS IMPLEMENTED AND IT WAS VACANT BETWEEN THAT PORTION. IT WAS VACANT SINCE 2009, BUT WE DID NOT START COLLECTING, WELL, THIS IS THE FIRST BILL THAT THEY RECEIVED, SO THEY PROBABLY BE GIVING CREDIT FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. WELL, [00:15:01] SO BASICALLY WHAT IT IS, WE STARTED BUILDING ALL THE VACANT LOTS IN 2018. SO THIS ONE WAS NOT ON THE LIST FOR GIVING BUILD UNTIL 2024, BUT THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED BUILDING THAT. SO THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T KNOWN AT THE TIME. OKAY. YES. AND SO THIS RAISES A QUESTION OF IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO BUILD GOING BACK IF WE, IF THE CITY KNOWS THAT THEY, WHAT WAS VACANT SINCE 2018? OR IS IT ONLY ONCE IT'S BEEN REPORTED? IT'S AS OF NOW, WE WON'T GO RETRO, WE WON'T GO BACK AND CHARGE 'EM FOR THE BACK FEES. UM, WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS VACANT, SO, BUT FROM THE HERE FORWARD, IT WILL GET THE, IS THAT A PHOTO OF THE LOT? NO, THAT IS ACTUALLY 2223 ARTESIA, WHICH IS GONNA SEE THE NEXT ONE. NO. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST WONDERED. THANK YOU. SHE WANTED TO PUT THE BEAUTY UP THERE. YEAH. BEAUTIFUL FACT. SO ONE THING THAT STRIKES ME ABOUT, ABOUT THIS, AND THIS IS NOT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THIS CASE, BUT RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT, IF I WERE NOT A MEMBER, AND THE THING IS PROBABLY TRUE OF OTHERS HERE, IF I WERE NOT A MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION, I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A FEE STRUCTURE OUT THERE WHICH INCENTIVIZES, UM, POTENTIALLY INCENTIVIZES OWNERS TO CLEAN UP VACANT LOCK. SO IT MIGHT FOR THE FUTURE, WHAT I'M THINKING, CARL, IS BE USEFUL TO IN SOME WAY, PUBLICIZE, UM, THE FACT THAT OWNERS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS WITH VACANT LOTS. MAYBE YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. YES. WE, WE HAD, WE HAD LETTERS THAT WENT OUT TO ALL THE VACANT LOT OWNERS AND SO FORTH REGARDING, BUT WITH THE ORDINANCE, TELL 'EM WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE AND SO FORTH, UH, FOR THE VACANT LAWS THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT THE FANCY ON AND SO FORTH. ALL THAT OUTREACH AND EVERYTHING WAS DONE PRIOR, UH, FOR THIS ONE HERE, UM, I DON'T KNOW. LET'S SEE. I DON'T BELIEVE A LETTER WAS SENT OUT PRIOR TO THE BUILDING. THERE WAS WHAT'S THERE? THERE WAS LETTER, YEAH. SO NOTIFICATION THERE. SO THERE WAS NOTIFICATION LETTER SENT TO THE PROPERTY ORDER FOR THIS ONE, AND THAT'S EXHIBIT LETTER. EXHIBIT I. SO THIS MAY BE A CASE OF A VACANT LOT WHERE YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WAS A VACANT LOT THAT DIDN'T BE CLEANED UP UNTIL THE CORRECT. YES. SO SOME OF THAT WE, WE DO FIND SOME, I MEAN, NOT ALL OF 'EM ARE KNOWN. WE HAD A LIST THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AND THAT'S WHAT WE WORKED ON. RIGHT. AND THEN THINGS COME UP WHEN THEY GET DEMOLITION, LIKE WHEN DEMO DEMOLITIONS HAPPEN, THEN THEY BECOME A VACANT LOT AND MAYBE THEY DON'T GET REPORTED TO US AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT AS WELL. BUT, RIGHT. SO THERE WAS A NOTICE ON, UM, DECEMBER 6TH, 2022 THAT WAS MAILED TO THE OWNER. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE ATTACHED, UH, NOTIFICATION. NOTICE THE NOTIFICATION FOR THE VACANT LAW. AND THAT'S, UM, THAT'S ITEM FOUR OR EXHIBIT FOUR? EXHIBIT SIX IS THE LETTER 19TH. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE, UM, COPY HONOR, MR, I DON'T WANT TO BUTCHER YOUR NAME, BUT IT'S OBJECTING. JASON. JASON JAW. JASON JAWAR. OKAY. YOU MAY POSITION PLEASE STATE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. UM, JASON JAWAR, UM, FIVE 20 CATALINA ROAD, FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 9 2 8 3 5. AND I'M THE OWNER SON. OKAY, THANKS. SO WE PURCHASED THIS LAND FROM THE CITY OF LONG BEACH TO INITIALLY BUILD TWO BUILDINGS ON. AND WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING OR GETTING THE PERMITS FROM THOSE TWO BUILDINGS. AND WE'VE BEEN IN PROCESS FOR GETTING THE, UH, PERMITS FOR SINCE ABOUT 2021. UM, THE SLOWDOWN, IT'S BEEN TAKING A LONG TIME BECAUSE OF COVID AND THE WORK HOME POLICIES. UM, WE'RE IN THE LAST STAGES OF GETTING THE BUILDING PERMIT, AND WE SHOULD HAVE ONE WITHIN THE NEXT EIGHT WEEKS. THE BUILDING PLANS ARE APPROVED AND THEY'RE READY TO ISSUE. WE'RE JUST WAITING ON SOME ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED WITH, UH, THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS. UM, PLEASE NOTE THAT WE DID NOT ACCEPT, OR SORRY, , WE DID NOT EXPECT THE PERMIT PROCESS TO TAKE OVER THREE YEARS. UM, THE MONTHLY CARRYING COST OF THE LAND FOR US ALREADY IS $2,100. UM, AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE FEES THAT WE'VE PAID THE CITY AND THE OTHER FEES THAT WE HAVE PAID. UM, HAD WE RECEIVED THE BUILDING PERMIT IN A REASONABLE TIME, WE WOULDN'T HAVE INCURRED [00:20:01] THESE VACANT LOT FEES. UH, WE FEEL IT'S UNFAIR BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. UH, MR. ARD, UH, WHEN DO YOU EXPECT TO GET THE PERMITS TO PROCEED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION? WITHIN THE NEXT EIGHT WEEKS. EIGHT WEEKS. AND WHEN WAS THE, UM, PERMIT APPLICATION, UH, MADE TO THE CITY? UH, 2021. SO THEN GUESS THAT QUESTION GOES TO THE, YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE, UH, TY FROM PLANNING WHO'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS CASE WITH EZ. HE CAN GIVE YOU, YOU KNOW, THE UPTODATE STATUS. OKAY. HI, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, MY NAME IS VU. I'M THE SENIOR BRANCH AT THE NEW SAFETY FLAGSHIP DIVISION. UM, GLAD TO BE HERE. I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SPEAK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT? OH, HI. UM, MY NAME IS . I'M THE SENIOR PLAN CHECK AT THE BUILDING SAFETY, UM, AT THE SECOND FLOOR . UM, GLAD TO BE HERE TO PROVIDE ANY CLARIFICATION AND SYSTEM. UM, JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE PLAN CHECK, UH, TIMEFRAME. UH, I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT. YES, UH, THE BUILDING SAFETY DID RECEIVE THE SUBMITTAL BACK IN SEPTEMBER, 2021, UH, DURING THE COVID TIME. UH, THIS BUILDING SAFETY ACTUALLY EXTEND SIX MONTHS ACTION TO HELP OUT, UH, WITH ALL THE APPLICANTS TO GET COVID, UH, TO BASICALLY GIVE A YEAR AND A HALF, A LITTLE OF A YEAR FOR THE OWNER, DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACT TO GET THE PROJECT APPROVED. UH, FOR THIS PROJECT, I HAVE THREE DATES RECORDED. UH, THE FIRST DATE, UH, WAS ON THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. UH, THIS IS THE DATE WHEN RECEIVED THE APPLICATION FOR SUBMITTAL AND RECORDS WAS ISSUED ON THAT MONTH. AND THE SECOND DATE, UM, WAS, UH, NOTED IN SYSTEM WAS, UM, AUGUST 10TH, 2022 WHEN THE SECOND ROUND REVIEW HAPPENED, WE BUILDING . UM, THEN, UM, ON THE MARCH, 2023, UH, THE FLAG CHECK HAS BEEN EXPIRED. UH, BUILDING SAFETY SENT OUT NOTICE, UH, TO REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO GET SIX MONTH EXTENSION, UH, TO NOVEMBER. UM, AND, UH, THE APPLICANT DID, UM, SUBMIT A REQUEST TO GET SIX MONTH EXTENSION, AND THE EXTENSION ALLOW A LITTLE BIT EXTRA TO THE DATE OF NOVEMBER 31ST, 2023. AFTER THE DATE, UH, THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER BUDGET, NOT WAY. THE BUDGET CHECK WILL BE EXPIRED AFTER NOVEMBER 31ST, 2022. UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY AT THE MOMENT, UH, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN EXPIRED AT THE MOMENT AND THERE'S NO FURTHER ACTIVITY SINCE THAT DAY. A QUESTION FOR YOU? YES. UH, FOR THE MARCH, UH, UH, SORRY, FOR DATE ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021, WAS THERE A FULL SET OF DRAWINGS SUBMITTED OR WAS JUST AN APPLICATION, UH, MR. ? YES, IT IS CONFIRMED IT'S A FULL SET OF DRAWINGS WITH , YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MR. GU, WHAT, UH, HOW DO THE, UH, EXPIRATION OF THE, OF THE PLAN CHECKS THOSE EXPIRING? HOW ARE THOSE COMMUNICATED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? UM, YES. UH, GREAT QUESTION. UM, UH, NORMALLY, UH, THE TIMEFRAME FOR PLAN CHECK IS ONLY ONE YEAR. DURING COVID 10TH, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, SERVICES EXTENDS SIX MORE MONTHS JUST TO HELP OUT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND OWNER. SO DURING COVID TIME, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE YEAR AND A HALF AT THE END OF ONE YEAR AND A HALF. THE PLAN STAFF MYSELF WAS ABLE TO TRY TO VERIFY THE DATE AND SET UP A NOTICE TO THE APPLICANT, NOTICE THAT THE, THE PLAN CHECK WILL EXPIRE ON THAT DATE AND GIVE THEM, GIVE THE CUSTOMER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND IT, UH, ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS DAY POSSIBLE. AND MOST OF THE TIME, THE FIRST POINT EXTENSION WILL BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTED. THAT'S THE WAY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO HELP OUT CONSTRUCTION AND MEMBERS AND ALL COMMUNITY. OKAY. IS THAT NOTIFICATION DONE WITH, UH, CERTIFIED MAIL OR SOME KIND OF TRACKING THIS SIMPLY JUST A MATTER OF FOR CUSTOMER OR THE APPLICANT JUST TO COME IN TO SAFETY, SUBMIT A REQUEST, UH, PAY A SMALL FEES, AND THEN ALLOW, UH, TWO TO FOUR WEEKS FOR REVIEW TIME. AND, UM, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING, UH, WHEN THE APPLICANT SUBMIT THE REQUEST, THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A SCREENING, UH, TO LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT YES, THE REQUEST HAS BEEN BILL AND HE LEAVE APPROVED IN INVEST, AND THE DATE AND 10 EMAIL OKAY. WILL BE GIVEN OUT FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS. OKAY. OKAY. ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO US, WAS THE APPLICANT THE OWNER OR WAS THE APPLICANT, UH, THE ARCHITECT OR OWNER [00:25:01] REPRESENTATIVE? UH, GREAT QUESTION. YES. UM, FOR MY, UH, PART, I MOSTLY WORK WITH THE, UM, THE LICENSE. HIS NAME IS PAUL COLEY. HE'S THE ONE THAT WE CONTACT AND SUBMIT AND CONTACT THE RECORD OF THE CITY. UM, SO THERE'S A REPRESENTATIVE THAT'S ALSO AWARE OF THE, AND KNOWS HOW YOU GUYS OPERATE AND HAS EXPERIENCE ADVISING OWNERSHIP OF, UH, THIS IMPORTANT KEY DATES. THANK YOU. SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. ARD, UH, AT WHAT POINT, UH, POINT, I KNOW YOU GUYS, UH, YOU HAD, UH, IT WAS EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER OF 23, BUT SOMEWHERE AT THE, SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THE PLANS WERE NOT, UH, FOLLOWED UP. AND SO NOW I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S WHY DEFINED IS, IS, UH, LEVY AND, UH, I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT A FINE, THESE ARE FEES THAT, THAT ARE MONITORING FEES, SO THEY'RE NOT A FINE, THANK YOU. THE FEES. AND SO THAT WOULD MAKE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEES BECAUSE, UH, UM, I FORGET HIS NAME. , YES. SO YOU ARE, UM, NOT, UM, UH, FOLLOWING UP OR I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW WHAT, SO THE, THE QUESTION GOES TO YOU IF YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PROCESS. WELL, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD, UM, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE PERMITS. WE'VE BEEN READY TO BUILD FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND ONCE WE GET, UH, THE FULL PERMITS, WE WERE READY TO BUILD. UM, WE WERE JUST WAITING FOR THE TIME TO GET, UH, WE WERE WAITING FOR THE TIME TO GET THE PERMITS TO BUILD, AND WE WERE GONNA KNOCK IT OUT. WE WERE GONNA START IMMEDIATELY. BUT, UM, AS OF MY KNOWLEDGE, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT THE, UH, THE REP, UH, THE OWNER. I'M JUST HIS SON. RIGHT. SO, AS OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS, UH, WE WERE JUST WAITING ON THE PLANS FROM WAITING FOR THEM. AND, UH, WE'VE BEEN READY TO BUILD FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. BUT, BUT NO ACTIONS WERE, WERE TAKEN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER ONCE THE PLAN CHECK EXPIRATION WAS, WAS MADE, YOU WERE MADE AWARE OF THAT? YEAH. DO YOU KNOW, UH, SORRY, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE. OKAY. BUT, AND THAT WAS WITH THE SIX MONTH EXTENSION? RIGHT. OKAY. YES. SO, SO WHEN THE PLAN CHECK EXPIRES, DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT FROM THE BEGINNING AGAIN? SO, UM, NORMALLY, UM, THE PRACTICE HAVE DUTY SAFETY, UH, TRY THE BEST TO NOTICE THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER, UH, THEY ONLY HAVE ONE EXTENSION ALLOWED. UM, IT IS REALLY INTENT TO HELP OUT, UM, MORE SUB PROJECTS, UH, AGAIN, AND HALF TO TWO YEARS, IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO COMPLETE THE PROJECTS. UM, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CASES AND SCENARIOS, UM, BECAUSE THE CODE CHANGE EVERY TWO YEARS. UM, SO THIS PROJECT, WHEN IT FIRST CAME IN 2019, IT'S UNDER THE OLD CODE 2019 EVERY THREE YEARS, THE CODE CHANGE RIGHT NOW, 2022, UH, STANDARDS, UM, DUE TO THE EARLIEST STILL UNDER THE OLD COAL, UH, BY DEFAULT, ALL THE OLD PROJECTS ALREADY EXPIRED, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE EXTENDED ANYMORE DUE TO THE CHANGE OF COAL, PARTICULARLY ON THE ENERGY WILL WEAK ON ENERGY STANDARDS, UH, EVERY TWO YEARS TO UPDATE AND MAKING MORE CHANGE. AND IT'S ALSO BACK UP, THE LVMC REQUIRE THE LOCAL AGENCY TO ENFORCE THE STATE STANDARD, NOT THE OLD CODE CYCLE. UH, SO YES, UM, UM, UM, MORE MEMBERS SAFETY. UM, SO THE, THE GOAL IS JUST TO GIVE, UH, AS EARLY NOTICE TO THE, UH, APPLICANT ABOUT SIX MONTHS EXTENSION AND GIVE ADDITIONAL SIX MONTH EXTENSION. AND THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT AND GOAL FOR SAFETY TO, AND AFTER THAT, THE PROJECT WILL BE EXPIRED. AND SO THEY WOULD START FROM GROUND ZERO, IF YOU WILL. HOW MANY, HOW MANY PROJECTS LIKE THAT ARE THERE IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW WITH THE COVID AND EVERYTHING GOING ON? ARE THERE A FAIR NUMBER THAT HAVE HAD THE EXPIRATION? UH, IT'S, IT IS THE NUMBER THAT I DON'T HAVE. I APOLOGIZE. UM, UH, CITY OF HAS SO MANY PROJECTS. UM, WE, WE HAVE SMALL PROJECT LIKE A DU, AND IT GO UP LIKE A BIG, A MID PRICE BUILDING FOR HIGH BUILDING. THERE'S SO MANY, UM, TO GIVE A QUICK STACK NUMBER. UM, BUT, UM, UH, PERSONALLY, MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, UM, TWO YEARS SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. BUT MY BEST UNDERSTANDING, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY LONG . UM, MOST OF THE OWNER, WHEN THEY HAVE A [00:30:01] PROJECT SITTING ON THE TABLE FOR TWO YEARS, IT, IT IS PRETTY LONG TIME TO WAIT, UH, TO BE HONEST, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT, I'M SURE THEY ONLY HAVE HIS OWN REASON, BUT THERE'S, UH, I HAVE TO READ ALL THIS VERY LITTLE ACTIVITIES, UM, THAT HAPPENED FOR THIS PROJECT. SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MRS. , THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. SO WHAT KIND OF CORRESPONDENCE WAS GOING ON BETWEEN THE ARCHITECT OR WHOEVER SUBMITTED THE PLANS AND THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS AN EXTENSION AND THAT YOU WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN PLENTY OF TIME FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAWINGS BASED ON THE COMMENTS BY THE CITY? UM, SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE ARCHITECT? UM, WELL, THE ARCHITECT, UM, IS, UM, MY GRANDFATHER, RIGHT? SO MY GRANDFATHER WAS, UH, THE MAIN ARCHITECT ON THE, UH, THE PROJECT, THE COMMUNICATIONS, UM, BETWEEN THEM WERE, THEY WERE HAD, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW, I WASN'T INVOLVED HEAVILY IN THIS PROJECT COMPLETELY, BUT AS OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY WERE, UH, CONVERSING. BUT A LITTLE WAS SET ABOUT THE, UM, THE, UH, THE, I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE UNAWARE ABOUT THE, UH, SORRY, THE COSTS OR THE FEES, THE NEW FEES FOR VACANCY. WELL, I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE, WERE WAS YOUR GRANDFATHER WHO'S THE ARCHITECT, WAS HE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A SIX MONTH EXTENSION? YES, WE WERE AWARE. OKAY. AND SO WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF, IF YOU DON'T MEET THE TIMELINES OF THE EXTENSION, THEN YOU GOTTA START ALL OVER AGAIN. IS THAT, WAS, WAS HE AWARE OF THAT? DO YOU KNOW? I'M NOT SURE. SO LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THIS. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT, CORRECT? ME, OR I'LL, I'LL ASK THIS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, ARE YOU MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS, YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND PERHAPS DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THE CITY FAILED TO LIVE UP TO ITS RESPONSIBILITIES IN REVIEWING THE PLANS? OR ARE YOU NOT MAKING SUCH AN ARGUMENT? CAN I, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE? OKAY. ARE YOU ARGUING THAT IT IS THE CITY'S FAULT THAT APPROVAL OF PLANTS HAS BEEN DELAYED? AND I ASK THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF YOU MAY NOT BE SURE OF THAT BECAUSE IT WAS YOUR GRANDFATHER AND NOT YOU THAT WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE CITY. I'M NOT SURE, UH, EXACTLY 'CAUSE THAT WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. BUT, UM, WHAT I, WHAT I DO KNOW IS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IT FOR DONE FOR THREE YEARS. AND WHAT I DO KNOW IS WE'VE BEEN PAYING THE MONTHLY CARRYING COST OF 2100. I HAVE THE PLAN CHECK NUMBERS FOR THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO. AND, UM, WE JUST, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS DONE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND, UH, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT AWARE, I WASN'T AWARE OF THE VACANCY LOT. I'M NOT SURE A HUNDRED PERCENT IF THEY WERE AWARE. BUT THAT'S ALL I, THAT'S ALL I KNOW. IF I COULD JUST GET BACK ON WITH YOU ALL SHARING RIGHT NOW, IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE CLOSE TO GETTING THE PERMIT RIGHT. JUST HAVE TO CLOSE ONE LAST ROUND. AND IF YOU DO IT THIS YEAR, AND THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT THIS PIECE IS PER RATING, SO IF YOU GET THAT DONE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OR JUST LOOKING AT A 300, $400 FEE MM-HMM. . SO YOU'RE NOT LOSING A LOT OF MONEY. WE'RE PROBABLY SPENDING MORE MONEY HERE IN THE SALARY, UH, THAN YOU WOULD, MY, YOUR FIRST CONCERN SHOULD BE THE PERMIT AND GETTING THAT APPROVED. THEN ONCE YOU HAVE A PERMIT, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE 12 MONTHS TO GET THAT TO START THE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL TOO. MM-HMM. , WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE, I THINK BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION LOAN RATES ARE REALLY EXPENSIVE. RIGHT. YOU ALSO HAVE COVID ALSO, BUT THE FEES ARE, UH, MINUSCULE IN COMPARISON TO THE REST OF YOUR EFFORTS. AND IF YOU DO 'EM, GET 'EM DONE EARLIER, UH, YOU SAVE A LOT MORE MONEY THAN THE $700 PER YEAR HERE. PLUS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN BACK FOR OTHER YEARS. SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY ON, ON THE WINNING SIDE RIGHT NOW. YEAH. WELL, MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO CHIME IN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OR, OR MAYBE I WASN'T CLEAR. UM, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD TY SAY THAT THE, UH, PLAN CHECK HAS EXPIRED. MM-HMM, , WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO RE RESUBMIT NEW PLANS TO MEET THE, TO CURRENT CODES. SO THAT, THAT'S A REVIEW IS BASICALLY STARTING OVER. SO, UM, WHICH WOULD MEAN NEW FEES AS WELL. IS THAT CORRECT? WHEN YOU'RE [00:35:01] SUBMITTING A NEW PLAN, YOU START WITH THE FEES AGAIN? YES, IT'S CORRECT. YES. AND THE NEW PLAN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL YES. I THINK AT THIS POINT I'M READY TO MAKE A COMMENT AND PERHAPS EVEN A RECOMMENDATION TO OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. IT COMES IN, IN PART. DO WE STILL HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE CITY OR THE PROPERTY? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. GO. UM, FOR A PERMIT OF THIS TYPE, ONCE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, WHAT'S THE TYPICAL, UH, TIME FOR GETTING APPROVAL? UH, YES. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL THAT YOU'RE COMMERCIAL. OKAY. HI, UH, BOARD MEMBER. UM, IT'S, IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY. UH, EVERY PROJECT HAS ITS OWN, UH, SPEED. MOST LIKELY BASED ON THE, UH, THE ACTIVITY ON THE AUDIT SIDE, WHICH IS IN THIS CASE WILL BE ON THE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTURE SIDE. UH, ONCE THE PLANS IS SUFFICIENT AND, AND READY TO GO, WE SAFETY WILL APPROVE THE PLANS VERY QUICKLY. UM, SO IT'S NOT REALLY, UH, SOMETHING THE CITY CAN CONTROL. IT'S MORE ABOUT THE ARCHITECT SIDE. UH, IF THE PLANS REALLY BY ONE MONTH TODAY AND WE TO GO, THAT'S WHERE THE, THEY, THE APPROVAL, UH, TYPICAL COMMERCIAL IT IS, I WILL SAY BETWEEN THREE MONTHS TO NINE MONTHS. OKAY. THAT'S A FAIRLY AVERAGE ESTIMATE. UM, AND, UM, THAT IS JUST MY BEST UNDERSTANDING FOR SMALL CO COMMERCIAL. CAN I GIVE BACK ON ONE QUESTION? BECAUSE OF THAT, ONCE HE GOES BACK TO THE PROJECT, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY THE FEES, RIGHT? 'CAUSE HE'S DEVELOPING THE PROJECT NOW, RIGHT? THAT ALSO BASED ON THE YEAH, WELL, HE WOULDN'T HAVE PERMIT, HE WOULDN'T HAVE PERMITS AT THAT POINT. SO PERMIT PERMIT EXCEPTIONS MINUTES. ALRIGHT. UM, MR. ARD, YOU'RE, YOU'RE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU'LL GET A PERMIT WITHIN EIGHT WEEKS. YES. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE A VIEW PERMIT'S EVEN APPLIED FOR. WE HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT AND WE'RE WAITING FOR ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN PUBLIC WORKS. I WAS HERE ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO AND I GAVE A CHECK TO PUBLIC WORKS THAT EVERYTHING'S, UM, WORKING ON OR THEY'RE WORKING ON GETTING THE PLAN TOGETHER. UM, UM, PUBLIC WORK IS A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT. UM, SO, UH, COUPLE CASES OWN A SYSTEM, UH, FOR BUILDING SAFETY, INCLUDING PLANNING FIVE. UH, THE PROJECT, UH, UNFORTUNATELY ALREADY EXPIRED, UH, NOVEMBER 31ST, LAST YEAR. UM, AS, UM, THE REPORT EARLY MENTIONED, UM, TO START APPROACH HIM AGAIN, THERE WILL BE A NEW APPROACH NUMBER, NEW FEES, AND MEET THAT STAND CODE TODAY. BUILDING SAFETY PLANNING AND PIPE. SO THE PROPERTY UNDERNEATH TO GET ANOTHER PLAN CHECK? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. BEFORE ANY PERMITS ARE ISSUED, HE'S HERE BECAUSE OF THE, UH, ONE YEAR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LOT BEING EMPTY, BASICALLY A VACANT LOT IN THIS. AND SO, I MEAN, YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE 21 AND YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU SAID A SIX MONTH EXTENSION AND NOTHING HAPPENED. SO, UM, IT'S STILL A DIFFERENT LIFE IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PERMIT AND EVERYTHING YOU NEED. SO IF I MAY JUST GIVE ONE MORE PIECE OF INFORMATION FROM OUR CHECK HERE. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. UH, COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PROGRAM? IS THIS GONNA BE A CRANE, UM, STORAGE YARD WITH THE OFFICES OR IS IT GONNA BE A MORE COMPLEX WAREHOUSE? SO IN PROGRAM, THE WORK DESCRIPTION, UM, SO THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT, UH, NEW TWO STORY WAREHOUSE OFFICE BUILDING AND BUILDINGS HAS ABOUT 2,500 SQUARE FEET. UM, ONE QUARTER OF THAT WILL BE USED FOR OFFICE, BUT REMAINING WILL BE FOR WAREHOUSE. AND THAT IS THE SCOPE WORK FOR THE BUILDING, ONE OF THE TWO. SO THE OVERALL, UM, GSF IS, UM, 2,500 SQUARE FEET. CORRECT. WHICH IS NOT VERY LARGE BECAUSE IT'S TWO STORIES. SO ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, THE FOOTPRINT IS 450 SQUARE FEET. YES. CORRECT. YES. SO THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT IS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT IS NOT VERY HIGH. MM-HMM, . SO WHEN HE SAYS NINE MONTHS, IT'S PROBABLY LOOKING AT THE FOUR MONTHS RATHER THAN THE NINE MONTHS TO REVIEW THE PROJECT. JUST, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT SO THAT WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT IF HE'S GONNA GO INTO AGAIN, HE'S NOT GONNA WAIT A WHOLE YEAR TO GET PERMIT. WAIT LESS THAN THAT. A LOT LESS BECAUSE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT IS NOT THAT LARGE. YEAH. SO WHAT I SEE HERE, AND HERE, I'M GONNA MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE NOW ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS. I'M NOT MAKING TO MAKE A MOTION JUST IN CASE THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS, [00:40:01] BUT THIS COMES, MY COMMENT COMES TO TWO PARTS. FIRST OF ALL, UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT MR. GELMAN GAVE US, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT WE HAVE A BASIS FOR ACCEPTING THE APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THIS PAPER. WE CAN ACT IN FAVOR OF PROPERTY OWNER ON AN APPEAL IF OWNERSHIP HAS CHANGED AND THE NOTICE WAS MAILED TO THE WRONG PERSON, OR IF THE OWNER IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF MERGING TWO LOTS. SO THAT'S PART ONE. NONETHELESS, IF THIS WERE A CLEAR SITUATION OF FAILURE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, WE WOULD BE VERY SYMPATHETIC, I THINK, TO THE OWNER. BUT YOU HAVE NOT BROUGHT US ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A CITY FAILURE. REALLY WHAT YOU'VE SAID TO US IS YOU'RE NOT SURE HOW THE PROCESS HAS MOVED FORWARD. SO I ALSO DON'T THINK WE, ONE THING WE MIGHT DO IF WE FELT THAT THE CITY HAD NOT ACTED PROPERLY, YET WE DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY, WE MIGHT RECOMMEND AS OPPOSED TO ACCEPTING THE APPEAL, WE MIGHT RECOMMEND THE CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S HERE EITHER. SO IF WE'RE READY TO VOTE, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THOSE ARE THE KEY FACTS WHICH ALLOW US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT, UH, UH, MY DETERMINATION AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE TIMELINE AND NOTHING HAPPENED. AND AS YOU SAY, THERE WAS A SIX MONTH EXTENSION, SO THE FEE, IT'S STILL A VACANT LOT NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. YEAH. SO WITH IT, WITH GREAT SYMPATHY, AND I MEAN THIS SINCERELY FOR THE OWNER BECAUSE THIS HAS NOT BEEN EASY PROCESS FOR YOU, BUT WITH GREAT SYMPATHY, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION NOW THAT HE REJECTS THIS APPEAL AND UP BOLD THE POSITION THAT THE CITY IS TAKING. I'LL SECOND HOLD ON THAT. UM, WE'RE GONNA REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. YES. DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT FROM NO. THEN CHAIR CHAIRMAN CHARLES WHITEHEAD. UH, YES. VICE CHAIRMAN HENRY TOVAR. YES. BOARD MEMBER FRANK ESPARZA? YES. BOARD MEMBER STEVE KIN? YES. BOARD MEMBER JANET LIPSON? YES. BOARD MEMBER IS RODRIGUEZ. YES. THANK YOU. THE APPEAL IS DENIED. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. CASE NUMBER VL 0 2 7. SORRY, SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. DASH ZERO THREE DASH 24 2 2 2 3 EAST ARTESIA BOULEVARD, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. DENNIS P. BREWER, OWNER CE CASE NUMBER CEVL 2 8 8 4 8 7 FOR THE VACANT LOT FEES. APPEAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE AGENDA. THE RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING AND DETERMINE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2223 EAST ARTESIA BOULEVARD. LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA MEET THE DEFINITION OF VACANT LOTS AS STATED, LONG BEACH SMITH CODE 18.2907 C. UH, THE APPELLATE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND UPHOLD ADMINISTRATIVELY. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATION. YES. WOULD YOU PLEASE, UH, POTENTIAL STAFF REPORT BEFORE WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THE ITEM? UH, THANK YOU. AND A SECOND. I SECOND. THANK YOU. AND THE SECOND WAS, THANK YOU, JEFF. WEATHER. ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2017, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ENDING IN LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 18.29, MAINTENANCE OF VACANT LAWS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION FEES ON AUGUST 18TH, 2018 TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE REPORT MATERIAL MAIL NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF ALL KNOWN VACANT LOT AS LISTED ON THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAX REQUEST RECORD. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT [00:45:01] 2223 EAST AR TWO BOULEVARD IS THE VACANT LOT FOR THE TIME BETWEEN 20 18 20 24, AND IS OWNED BY THE NO EXEMPTIONS TO THE ANNUAL ADMINISTERING FEE APPLIED TO THESE PROPERTY. FOR THIS PROPERTY. ON OCTOBER 9TH, UH, NO, NOVEMBER 21ST, 2023, A LETTER WAS SENT INDICATING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2223 EAST ARTIA BOULEVARD, VACANT LOT, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA WE'RE SUBJECT TO THE VACANT LOT PROGRAM PURSUANT TO EIGHT CHAPTER 18.29 OF LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. AND THAT THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MONITORING SUBJECT PROPERTIES WOULD BE ASSESSED AND BILLED ANNUALLY ON JANUARY 17TH, 2024. VACANT LOT ADMINISTRATING FEE BILLING LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS LISTED ON THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR RECORD ON JANUARY 31ST, 2024, STAFF RECEIVED A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE VACANT LOT MONITORING FEES. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? UH, FOR STAFF ON THE BOARD? NOT YEAH, MR. DENNIS. RE RE LIKE FREE AIRIER, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, ADDRESS. DENNIS RE, 84 20 FAIRTON STREET, PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA 9 0 7 2 3. AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY? I'M THE OWNER. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY, SURE. WANT TO COMMENT ON HIS CASE FIRST, BUT I, I KNOW IT'S TOO LATE. BUT, BUT NUMBER ONE, THAT THE, THE SYSTEM IS SO COMPLEX AND CONFUSING. WE AS OWNERS HAVE A HARD TIME COMPLYING AND NUMBER TWO, AND, AND I I'VE BUILT OVER THE YEARS, SO I'VE GOT PERMITS, NONE. WERE AS COMPLEX AS LONG BEACH. AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER CITIES I'VE DEALT IN AND, AND I ACTUALLY ON THIS VERY LOT, GAVE UP, HAD APPROVED PLANS IN THE EARLY NINETIES, SO 30 YEARS AGO AND, AND GAVE UP BECAUSE THE, THIS WAS SO COMPLEX IT WASN'T WORTH MY EFFORT. I MEAN, I HAD MANY OTHER THINGS TO DO, SO, I MEAN, NOT LIKE IT WAS ONLY FISH IN THE POT OR ANYTHING, BUT, BUT, BUT IT, IT, THIS IS TOO COMPLEX. IT IS SCARY COMPLEX. AND, AND HE THINKS HIS PLANS ARE GONNA BE APPROVED IN EIGHT WEEKS AND HE, HE SAYS THEY HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN. AND YET WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO COMPLY. I MEAN, EVERYTHING WE CAN, YOU KNOW, SO, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S WEIRD. SO, OKAY, NOW, NOW WE'RE BACK TO ME. SO I, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION AND I READ THAT THERE WAS A LAWSUIT AGAINST THIS, UH, PROGRAM. HAS THAT BEEN SOLVED IN, SO, UM, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THE LAWSUIT IN RELATION? 'CAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS KNOCKED DOWN INTO YOUR APPEAL. OKAY, TO MY APPEAL, BECAUSE IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I, I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE YOU GUYS JUST LOOKING THIS UP. OKAY. THE ANSWER. SO, OKAY, SO I'LL JUST CONSTANTLY COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A LAWSUIT AND WHAT THE LAWSUIT RESULTS WERE IS NOT BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. I WILL SILENCE MYSELF ON THAT POINT. UM, BUT WHAT I THINK WE CAN SAY IS THAT IF THIS IS AN ISSUE WHERE THERE'S A QUESTION THAT YOU'RE RAISING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT, THAT IS CLEARLY NOT SOMETHING ON WHICH WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE UNDER AUTHORITY RULE. OKAY. THAT IF, IF THAT WERE YOUR ARGUMENT, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING THAT GOES TO A PLACE OTHER THAN THIS COMMISSION. THAT WAS MY PURPOSE FOR THE PROTEST BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THAT IF THE LAWSUIT WAS WON, THAT THIS LAW WOULDN'T BE IN EFFECT. BUT, SO PRESUMABLY LEGAL COUNSEL CAN TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS, WHETHER OR NOT THIS LAW IS STILL IN EFFECT. RIGHT? AND SO IF OUR OFFICE WOULD GIVE THE, UH, THE COMMISSION A DIRECTION IF THAT WERE THE CASE, AND I HAVEN'T FROM TODAY'S DATE, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY DIRECTION AS TO THIS PARTICULAR MUNICIPAL CODE, UH, IN RELATION TO WHATEVER LAWSUIT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE. SO WE BASICALLY HAVE TO GO AHEAD, DEAL WITH IT IF WE DUNNO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. CORRECT. AND IF SUBSEQUENTLY THAT LAW IS CHANGED OR WHATEVER, THEN YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA DEAL WITH THAT. I GO TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT [00:50:01] TO GET A REFUND. WHAT DO, WHAT DO WE DO THEN? ALL THE PEOPLE THAT IT AFFECTS ADVERSELY. SO AGAIN, WE'RE NOT THE PEOPLE THAT I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION. SO, SO IF, SO, IF, IF, UM, IF YOUR APPEAL IS DENIED BY THIS COMMISSION, AND THAT'S AN, IF YOUR RECOURSE WOULD BE TO GO TO, UM, THE COURT SYSTEM AND 'CAUSE THIS, BASICALLY THE COMMISSION'S RULING WOULD BE FINAL AS TO THE MATTER, AND THEN YOU AS THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE TO, UM, GO TO THE COURT, UH, LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT IN THIS CASE TO REQUEST RELIEF. GOT IT. BUT UM, AND I KNOW IT GETS CONFUSING, BUT, UM, THAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOURSE IN THAT SITUATION. BUT THEN AGAIN, I'M HERE TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION AND NOT SO, BUT I'M JUST A MINUTE BROUGHT IT UP. I'M JUST EXPLAINING. THERE'S OTHER, THE, THE, AS A, UH, PROPERTY OWNER AND, AND, AND APPELLANT, YOU HAVE OTHER LEGAL RECOURSE TO TAKE OTHER THAN WITH THE CITY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE APPEALING THIS DECISION WITH THE CITY ONCE THE COMMISSION END BRANDONS ITS RULING, IT'S FINAL. IF IT IS, IF IT DENIES YOUR APPEAL, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE LEGAL RECOURSE OTHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, WHICH, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH NOW. OKAY. AND SO BASED ON THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVICE, AND BASED ON WHAT I SEE IN THE DOCUMENTS OF YOUR PROTEST IN WHICH YOU WROTE THAT THE PD THE FEE IS UNREASONABLE AND PROBABLY ILLEGAL, YOU NOW UNDERSTAND THAT'S OUTSIDE OUR SCOPE COMPLETELY. SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS WHETHER YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR APPEAL BASED ON EITHER A RECENT CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FOR THIS PROPERTY OR A SITUATION IN WHICH YOU CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF MERGING TWO LOTS AND AGREE TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS WITH I AM NOT WITHIN ONE YEAR. I AM NOT. SO BASICALLY YOUR ARGUMENT IS BEST IS, UH, UH, ABOUT THE LEGAL YEAH. ASPECT. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WE CAN DO WITH THAT. I, I KNOW, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, IT'S SO CONFUSING THAT IT, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, IT'S UNSOLVABLE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE NO CONTROL OF OUR OWN PROPERTIES. YEAH. SO HE THINKS HE'S GETTING PERMITS IN EIGHT WEEKS AND HE SAYS HE CAN'T GET PERMITS. SO, AND YOU KNOW, YOU ARE HERE, SO OUTSIDE THAT REALM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER MATTER THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOUR ACT. OKAY. UM, THAT'S, AND I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION OF THE CITY. IS MY FEE PAID? YES. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. I'M DONE. OKAY. SO IF I COULD JUST MENTION SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO POSSIBLY USE YOUR LOT FOR AGRICULTURAL USE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, COMMUNITY USE OR SOMETHING, THEN YOU CAN CONTACT THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY. OKAY. AND THEY'LL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION ON THAT. AND SO WHAT THAT DOES, THAT GIVES YOU TO WHERE YOU WOULDN'T, YOU WOULDN'T PAY THE FEES, BUT ALSO, UM, SOMETHING ABOUT THE TAXES THAT YOU PAY FOR THE VACANT LOT AS WELL. SO YOU MIGHT GET A BREAK ON THAT. SO, UM, WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE CAN MEET YOU THAT INFORMATION. WELL, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. YEAH. THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WOULD HELP MAINTAIN THE LAW. WE HAVE CHURCH MEMBERS, SO WE'LL USE IT. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY, DENNIS. OKAY. YOU, OUR HANDS ARE TIME. WE'RE JUST VERY PERSISTENT LIKE YOU ARE. AND WE HAVE A WAY TO HELP YOU OUT. WE, WE, WE PROBED THEM A LOT TO HELP THEM OUT ALSO, SO, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK, UH, YOU CAN MAKE THIS MOTION . OKAY. HAPPY. I I THAT I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE APPEAL. I SECOND IT. COMMENT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT? NO. NO. OKAY. NO. CHAIRMAN. CHARLES WHITEHEAD? YES. VICE CHAIRMAN HENRY TOVAR? YES. UM, BOARD MEMBER FRANK ESPARZA? YES. BOARD MEMBER STEVE KIN? YES. BOARD MEMBER JANET LIPSON? YES. BOARD MEMBER. ISMA. ENRIQUE? YES. THANK YOU. UM, APPEAL IS DENIED. YOU GOT A LOT OF LEGAL, UH, ADVICE FOR FREE RIGHT NOW. YES. IN A WAY OUT OF ALL YOUR TAXES. SO, YEAH. YOU GUYS, DID YOU HEAR THAT? I'M [00:55:01] NOT GIVING YOU ANY ADVICE, , I'M JUST TELLING YOU HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. OKAY. I I DO KNOW A LOT OF ATTORNEY JOKES, THAT YOU COULD TELL WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CAT, FISH AND AN ATTORNEY? I'M NOT GONNA GIVE YOU THE PUNCH. GRANDPARENTS. CHAIRMAN PUBLIC. YEAH, JUST GETTING INTO IT. I'M TRYING TO, THIS IS THE TIME FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AND WITHIN THEIR PURE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. OKAY. YOU CAN LET HIM. THANK YOU. OF JEFF. IS THERE ANYONE? MANAGER'S REPORT MANAGER REPORT. I'M ALL CONFUSED TODAY. I SEE. SO MANAGER'S REPORT. OH, I'M SORRY. YES. UH, CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A REPORT FOR 1640 SEVENTH STREET. WENT BEFORE THE BOARD, I BELIEVE NOVEMBER. IT WAS A SUBSTANDARD BUILDING CASE, UH, THAT CHANGED OWNERSHIP. SO THE OWNER HAS OBTAINED, UH, THE REQUIRED PERMIT AND HAS STARTED WORK. UM, DID CITY, THE ATTORNEY AGREEMENT WITH DEADLINES. SO THAT CASE, YEAH, , THEY, THEY MOVED ON IT PRETTY WELL. YEAH. SO GO AHEAD, CONCLUDES THE MATTERS REPORT. RIGHT? OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING DATE IS APRIL 15TH, 2024. TEXT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. I THANK YOU. MOTION ONE? NO, WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.