* 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. I LIKE TO [00:00:01] CALL YOU DO? YES, YOU WOULD. GO AHEAD. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WOULD THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? YES. CHAIR JANET LIPSON HERE, VICE CHAIR STEVE ASIN. HERE. BOARD MEMBER IMAR ENRIQUEZ. HERE. BOARD MEMBER, MEMBER AARON HOOPS. HERE. BOARD MEMBER FL POWERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM AND BOARD MEMBER FL POWERS IS EXCUSED. ABSENT TODAY. THANK YOU. AND WE NEED TO RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE PLEDGE AND ASK EVERYBODY WHO CAN RISE. PLEASE DO PLACE YOUR HAND OVER YOUR HEART AND REPEAT AFTER ME. ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. THANK YOU. IS THERE, IS THERE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 19TH? SO, MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED BY MOVED AND SECONDED. MOVED BY AARON AND SECONDED BY STEVE ASINS TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 19TH. COMMISSIONERS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR A MOTION. UM, CHAIR JANET LIPSON. AYE. VICE CHAIR STEVE KIN. AYE. BOARD MEMBER IS ENRIQUEZ AYE. BOARD MEMBER AARON HOOPS. AYE. THANK YOU. UH, THE MOTION HAS PASSED. THANK YOU. THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS IN CONDEMNATION IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ONE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.10 0.420 TO PROVIDE A FORM TO REVIEW FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS TO ABATE SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC NUISANCES. THE BOARD ALSO ACCESS HEARING OFFICERS AND CONDUCTS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, ASSESS LEVIES AND APPEALS OF DISABLED ACCESS CASES. THE BOARD CONDUCTS THE HEARING ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER FOR EACH ITEM, THE CLERK WILL READ THE CASE NUMBER AND PROPERTY ADDRESS. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE MAY THEN COME TO THE PODIUM. STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CASE REPORT AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME, THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD. SHOULD YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE. MADAM CLEAR. WILL YOU PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? UM, STAFF APPELLANTS WITNESSES AND OTHERS PRESENT WISHING TO TESTIFY ON AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS HEARING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU MADAM CLERK. PLEASE READ THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 1 5 0 8 ORANGE AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA MARSHALL, TOBIAS, VIVIAN, TOBIAS, OWNERS CE CASE NUMBER CEVL 2 9 5 5 88 IN REGARDS TO VACANT LOT APPEALS FEES APPEALS MAY HAVE, MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'LL MOVE. AND IT IS A MOTION TO HEAR. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. A MOTION TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE. SO IT'S A MOTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL BY STEVE ATKINS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND. AND WE HAVE A SECOND. UM, I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO STAFF FOR THE REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAD CHAIR AND CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER, PUBLIC STAFF. UM, MY NAME IS ARGO AND I'LL BE GIVING YOU THE OVERVIEW BRIEF ON THE VACANT LOT ORDERS, UM, IN SPECIFYING OPTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE VACANT LOT MONITORING PROGRAM, SPECIFYING OPTIONS ON HOW THEY MAY CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROGRAM. SO THE VACANT LAW REGISTRY ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2017. THE ORDINANCE, LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1829 WAS DRAFTED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL AND REGULATES THE MAINTENANCE AND USE OF VACANT LOSS IN THE CITY. VACANT LOTS CAN BECOME A NUISANCE AND THE COMMUNITY IS NOT PROPERLY MONITORED AND MAINTAINED. THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT OWNERS OF LOCKS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A VACANT LOCK AS DEFINED IN LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE 18.2 9.070 [00:05:03] REGISTERED A LOT WITH THE CITY AND PAID MONITORING FEE. THE VACANT LOT REGISTRY FEE IS $804, CURRENTLY LONG. MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.2 9.080. I STATES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MAY DEMAND A HEARING AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES OR CHARGES IMPOSED. THE DEMAND MUST INCLUDE PROPERTY INVOLVED AND THE REASON FOR THE OBJECTION AT THIS HEARING, THE BOARD EXAMINERS APPEALS IN COMBINATION WILL HEAR THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF FEES AND CHARGES AND EITHER CONFIRM OR MODIFY THE CHARGES. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE BE EXEMPTIONS WHEN THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED AND OPERATED FOR SPECIFIC COMMUNITY SUCH AS URBAN AGRICULTURE OF THE VACANT LOT REGISTRY APPEAL, $804 IS APPEALABLE AND LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEY ARE FOLLOWED AS FALSE. NUMBER ONE, THE FEE AMOUNT MAY BE APPEALED IF THE LOT WAS NOT IN FACT VACANT FOR THE ENTIRE 12 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. NUMBER TWO, THE FEE MAY BE APPEAL IF THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP HAS CHANGED AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAILED THE NOTICE IS NO LONGER THE CURRENT OWNER. NUMBER THREE, THE FEE MAY BE TEMPORARILY WAIVED IF A PROPERTY OWNER IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF MERGING TWO LOTS AND AGREES TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS WITHIN ONE YEAR. NUMBER FOUR, THE THEME MAY ALSO BE WAIVED IF THE LOT IS DEEMED TO BE UNBUILT UPON OR TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE PLANNING BUREAU. NUMBER FIVE, DEVELOP THE PARCEL STARTS PLANNING ENTITLEMENT PROCESS OBTAINED BUILDING PERMITS. NUMBER SIX, PROPERTY OWNER ALLOWS TEMPORARY URBAN AGRICULTURAL OR URBAN GREENS SUCH AS POCKET PARKS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS. AND LASTLY, UH, PLANNING APPROVES TEMPORARY ACTIVATING USE FOR EVENTS SUCH AS CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY EVENTS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL HAS SET A FEE AMOUNT OF $804 AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AND AFTER THE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF THE PD NEEDED TO AFFECT COST RECOVERY FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ELEMENT STAFF, THE PX DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS AMOUNT. ONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DRIVEN DESCRIBED EXISTS AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION, SUCH AS CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, OR IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PARCEL NEEDS RELEASE FOR COMMUNITY SERVING PURPOSE OR IF THE PARTICULAR LOT HAS BEEN DETERMINED, UM, ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED. UH, THEREBY I ALSO WANT TO PROVIDE YOU THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND WE RECOMMEND TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING AND DETERMINE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 0 8 ORANGE AVENUE, LONG BEACH BOULEVARD, LONG, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9 0 8 1 3, THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A VACANT LOT AS STATED IN THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE 18.2907 C. THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND UPHOLDS THE ANNUAL ADMINISTRATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND BRIEF. IF YOU YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? I I HAVE A QUESTION. AND I WAS, UM, LOOKING AT WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US IN THE LAW IS THE INTENT IS THE INTENT OF THE LAW TO MAKE SURE THAT VACANT LAWS LOOK REASONABLE AND ARE NOT A DETRIMENT TO OTHER HOMEOWNERS. SO THE, THE, UH, MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN ORDER TO REGISTER ALL VACANT LOTS. NOW, WHAT YOU'RE SPECIFYING IS A CIRCUMSTANCE OR CRITERIA THAT WE CAN CHOOSE TO ENROLL PROPERTY IN IT. HOWEVER, WHAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, IS, IS UP TO THE CITY AS WELL. BUT BASED ON THE STARTING OF THE PROGRAM, WE ENROLLED ALL VACANT LOGS INTO THE PROGRAM. AND THE GIVEN SEVEN OPTIONS ARE THE ONLY SEVEN OPTIONS WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER MAY OPT TO BE OUT OF THE PROGRAM. OR IF THEY DON'T CHOOSE ANY OF THOSE OR QUALIFY FOR ANY OF THOSE SEVEN, THEN THEY ARE ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM AND PAY THE FEE. THANK YOU. MY CONCERN IS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE, UM, ORDINANCE IS THAT VACANT LOTS CAN BE A MAJOR CAUSE OF VISUAL AND OTHER BLIGHT AND IT GOES ON ABOUT THESE THINGS. AND YET IF ONE HAS A WELL MAINTAINED VACANT LOT, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT IT WAS THE SPIRIT OR THE INTENT OF THE LAW TO CHARGE PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY HAVE AN ADJACENT L THAT FOR SOME REASON ISN'T ONE OF THOSE DOUBLE LOTS. YES. UM, IN THE BELMONT HEIGHTS AREA, THERE ARE WHAT ARE CALLED DOUBLE LOTS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WELLMAN WELL-MAINTAINED, ALMOST CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR FENCED. WHY CAN THAT NOT JUST BE CONSIDERED A DOUBLE LOT OR ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE IN THE ESTATE SECTION OF BELMONT HEIGHTS [00:10:01] GETTING CHARGED FOR VACANT LOTS? SO, SO WHEN YOU GO INTO THE DEFINITION, IT SPECIFIES THAT THERE, THAT A VACANT LOT IS A PROPERTY THAT HAS NO STRUCTURES ON IT OR IT'S NOT BEING USED, UTILIZED FOR ITS PURPOSE. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION, UM, IS IT'S IDENTIFIED IN, IN THE, UH, DESCRIPTION AS VACANT LOT, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE DEVELOPED INTO, FOR EXAMPLE, MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY. UH, SO RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED TO ITS POTENTIAL. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER REASONS WHY IT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM. BUT WHAT AGAIN, TO THE INTENT OF THIS PROGRAM IS THAT THE FOCUS WAS SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT ALSO BLIGHT. AND SO AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER MIGHT BE MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED LEGALLY A VACANT LAW. AND MS. , IF I MIGHT, UM, THAT IS THE PURPOSE SECTION HERE, CLEARLY STATES AS YOU DESCRIBED, BUT IT'S NOT A CRITERIA ON THE REGISTRY IN THE VACANT LAW PROGRAM. AND THE STATUTE HERE DOES DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ENTRY INTO THE VACANT LAW PROGRAM AND SUBSECTION C AND D VERSUS FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE IN SUBSECTION A AND COULD GENERATE ADDITIONAL FEES OR COSTS, WHICH ALSO COULD BE APPEALED TO THIS BOARD. AND THE BOARD WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COST IS CHARGED IN THAT CONTEXT ARE REASONABLE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CITY WERE TO TAKE ABATEMENT ACTION TO REMOVE TRASH OR GRAFFITI, NONE OF THAT APPLIES. IN THIS CASE, THE CITY'S NOT SEEKING ANY CHARGES IN THIS CASE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE BASIS AS ARTICULATED IN THE STATUTE IN UH, OH EIGHT, OH SUBSECTION A. AND THE FEE HERE DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT RATHER IS SPECIFY IN SUBSECTION D OF THAT SAME STATUTE. AND AARON, DID YOU WANNA SAY, UM, MY QUESTION IS, UH, THIS IS SORT OF IRRELEVANT FOR THIS, BUT IS THERE A PROCESS FOR UPDATING THIS LANGUAGE? BECAUSE LIKE YOU MENTIONED, THE UH, THIS MAY NOT BE LIKE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THIS PLOT, BUT WHAT THIS IS DOING IS ENCOURAGING LAW MERGING, WHICH MAKES EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE AS WE KNOW. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THIS LAW EITHER. AND SO, UM, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING THE LANGUAGE? IT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AND I'M, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE WHOLE ALL STAFF IS INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WAYS TO CLARIFY A MAN TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE HERE AS WE DISCUSS THESE THINGS. UM, BUT THAT'S UNDER REVIEW AND IF YOU WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE, UM, EFFORTS UNDERWAY REGARDING NOT JUST SPECIFICALLY THIS BUT CODE ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE GENERALLY, BUT ALSO SPECIFIC MADAM CHAIR. I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IN CASE THERE WERE THERE ANY, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT HAPPENS AFTER, UH, WE DO HAVE ONE OF OUR OFFICERS, MARIANNE CRONIN, WHO CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, TIMELINES, REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE DO HAVE HER AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. UH, OUR PART IS JUST TO ENFORCE WHAT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN AND UH, LIKE OUR STATE ATTORNEY MENTIONED IS WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING AND CLARIFYING THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO ENFORCE, BUT ALSO A LOT CLEAR FOR THE, UH, FOR THE RESIDENTS TO, TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL. ALRIGHT. OKAY, GO AHEAD. EXCUSE. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING, UM, THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE AND WHAT DOES THE MAINTENANCE PROVIDE, UM, TO THE PERSON HERE, UM, APPEALING THIS? UM, AND JUST TO KIND OF PLAY ON THE MATH, RIGHT, ARE YOU DOING A MONTHLY LANDSCAPE CLEANUP? ARE YOU MAINTAINING IT? 'CAUSE IF YOU PAY A, YOU KNOW, A LANDSCAPE COMPANY, YOU KNOW, TO DO AN ENTIRE LOT OF THAT SIZE, YOU'RE PROBABLY PAYING ABOUT $80 A MONTH, RIGHT? $80 TIMES 12, PROBABLY GUESS WITHIN THAT $800 FIGURE, WHICH IS PROBABLY AN OFFSET, RIGHT? APPLES TO APPLES ON THE COST OF MAINTAINING IT. BUT IS THE CITY GOING TO MAINTAIN THE LAW AS A PROFESSIONAL LASTING COMPANY WOULD STILL PRESERVE THE SAME LOOK THAT IS RIGHT NOW? OR ARE THEY JUST PASSING BY AND PUT AN FENCE AND SOME MESH IN FRONT OF IT AND JUST ENSURING THERE'S NO BLIGHT? YEAH, THE CITY'S NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING NOW AND NOR WOULD IT HAVE A RIGHT TO EVEN UPON REGISTRY IN THIS PROGRAM. WHAT THIS PROGRAM WILL DO IS IDENTIFY POTENTIALLY, OR ACTUALLY VACANT LOTS SO THAT THE CITY CAN MONITOR THEM FOR BLIGHT AND TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION IF THERE IS FLIGHT. THE WAY THE FEE AMOUNT WAS DIS COME TO WAS THROUGH CITY COUNCIL IN EVALUATION OF THOSE MATERIALS. THANK YOU. SO THE ANSWER IS THAT THERE, THERE'S NO LANDSCAPE OF MAINTENANCE PROVIDED ON AN ONGOING BASIS. UM, SO EVEN THOUGH A FEE MAY BE PAID TO, TO MAINTAIN THE LOT TO [00:15:01] THE CITY, IT WILL BE MAINTAINED. IT WOULD LOOK A LOT WORSE. IT WOULD, IT MAY, UM, YEAH, IF IT BECAME WORSE THEN THERE WOULD BE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES FOR ENSURING THAT THE PROPERTY WERE MAINTAINED ADEQUATELY. IF THOSE FAILED, THEN THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO ABATE UPON NOTICE OR SUMMARILY, DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE CONDITION AND CHARGE BACK THE FEES THERE. THANK YOU MR. HESTON. I HAVE TWO FURTHER QUESTIONS. UM, I MAY BE MISTAKEN, BUT IF I REMEMBER RIGHTLY, THERE WAS SOME TALK LAST TIME THIS PROPERTY CAME UP ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING THE LOTS. SO FIRST I'M INTERESTED IN WHERE THAT STANDS AND SECOND, RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS A CASE, AN UNUSUAL CASE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS AND ONE WHERE WE ARE REACHING FOR OPTIONS WITH REGARD TO A WELL MAINTAINED LOT. WHAT IS THE, OUR ABILITY, IF ANY, TO AGAIN, WAIVE ACTION ON THIS UNTIL THE PROCESS THAT'S BEEN DESCRIBED HAS BEEN COMPLETED? I HAVE THE SAME RECOLLECTION, MR. KIN. MY RECOLLECTION LAST TIME WAS THAT, UM, THERE WASN'T REALLY MUCH DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY COUNTS IT AS A VACANT LOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE FEE. THERE WAS A DESIRE FROM THE BOARD, I THINK RIGHTLY AND COMPASSIONATELY TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY OR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES RATHER THAN PAYING THE VACANT LOT FEE. UM, AND SO I I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE BEST DIRECTED TO STAFF UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS HAD CONTACT, WHICH IS BEYOND MY KNOWLEDGE, WELL MAYBE THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN TELL US WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO ATTEMPT TO MERGE . I LOOKED INTO THAT YEARS AGO. UM, DIDN'T REALLY SEE THE NEED TO PURSUE THAT. 'CAUSE AGAIN, THIS LOT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE 72. EXCUSE ME. MS. EVA, BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? OH, OKAY. 15 15 0 4 ORANGE AVENUE, LONG BEACH, 9 0 8 1 3. UM, YEAH, SO THIS LOT HAS BEEN VACANT, UM, SINCE THE SEVENTIES. UM, NEVER HAD AN ISSUE. IT WAS FENCED IN WITH THE REGULAR PROPERTY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE FENCING SEAT, UM, WAS THROUGH THE CITY NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. UM, WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT 'CAUSE IT WAS A CHAIN LINK. IT WAS A CHAIN LINK, FOUR FOOT HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS. AND THEN WHEN THEY HAD A GRANT PROGRAM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WE PUT IN THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE. WE TOOK IT TO JUST MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IMPROVED THE AESTHETIC. UM, SO I, I NEVER REALLY, BEFORE NOW, NEVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THE NEED. 'CAUSE AGAIN, IT, IT WAS NEVER A PROBLEM. I'VE ALWAYS HAD, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MAINTAINED. I HAVE A GARDENER NOW, HE CHARGES ME $60 EVERY OTHER WEEK. HE'S A WONDERFUL, I HOPE I DON'T LOSE HIM. HE'S A WONDERFUL GUY. 'CAUSE HE DOESN'T CHARGE ME EXTRA FOR TRIM TREES AND TRUCKS. HE DOES A LOT MORE THAN JUST CUTTING THE GRASS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR ME IT'S LIKE $120 A MONTH. HE COMES, HE'S GONNA BE HERE WEDNESDAY, AS A MATTER OF FACT. UM, NEVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I, ALTHOUGH I'VE HAD PEOPLE PROPOSE TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD THINGS ON IT AND, YOU KNOW, I STILL GET OFFERS. PEOPLE WANT TO BUY THE PROPERTY AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THAT PART OF THE TRAGEDY OF LONG BEACH AS SOMEONE WHO WAS BORN HERE IS THE DENSITY THAT WE ARE BEING FORCED TO LIVE WITH. UM, IN NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MINE, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE, I THINK THE FRONT HOUSE WAS BUILT, I WAS TOLD LIKE IN 1925 OR SOMETHING. AND IT WAS A REALLY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A REALLY NICE COMMUNITY GROWING UP. AND NOW WE'RE PACKED IN WITH SARDINES. I CALL THE POLICE TWO OR THREE TIMES A MONTH BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BLOCKING MY DRIVEWAY. PEOPLE ARE GETTING TICKETED. UM, SO ADDING HOUSING , UM, IS THE, FINISHING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTS HERE, ESPECIALLY IN NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MINE. AND THERE'S AN APARTMENT ON THE ONE SIDE OF ME, UM, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TWO STORY APARTMENT. IT'S ACTUALLY VACANT. IT'S BEEN VACANT NOW FOR, UH, EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON SINCE JANUARY. UH, BECAUSE IN MY OPINION, THE RENT'S TOO HIGH. UM, AND THE HOUSE THAT USED TO BE ON THAT LOT WAS JUST A SINGLE, IT'S A, IT WAS JUST A SINGLE HOUSE. IT ACTUALLY WAS IDENTICAL TO THE HOUSE. 1506. I THINK THE SAME BUILDER PROBABLY BUILT BOTH HOUSES. AND SO I JUST NEVER HAD THE INCLINATION TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE LOT. IT JUST, I'VE ALWAYS GOT COMPLIMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE [00:20:01] LIKED SEEING THE GREEN SPACE, ESPECIALLY BEFORE THE PARK WAS ACROSS THE STREET. UM, SO I HADN'T REALLY LOOKED INTO MERGING OF THE LOTS. I DIDN'T SEE THE NEED FOR IT UNTIL NOW. I GUESS I CAN LOOK INTO THAT TO SEE IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE OPTIONS WOULD BE. UM, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT, THAT GETS THE TAX PEOPLE LOOKING AT YOU TOO. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, , YOU GOTTA GOTTA LOOK AT THAT TOO. SO, BUT YEAH, I, I COULD LOOK INTO THAT AND SEE, UM, WHAT'S INVOLVED IN THAT. SOMEONE HAD MENTIONED THAT TO ME A FEW YEARS AGO, UM, IF I WASN'T GONNA, DIDN'T WANT TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE LOT, BUT I, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS PROGRAM FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS, IT WAS NEVER A PROBLEM. AND THEN RETURNING TO MY SECOND QUESTION, WHAT AUTHORITY WOULD WE HAVE AS A COMMISSION TO FURTHER DEFER ACTION ON THIS PENDING THE PROCESS THAT'S BEEN DESCRIBED OF AMENDED POTENTIALLY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO ACCOUNT FOR WELL MAINTAINED PROPERTIES, IF THAT'S IN FACT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW? YEAH, I COULDN'T RECOMMEND AND, OH, EXCUSE ME, I COULDN'T RECOMMEND ADVISING DELAYING ON BA THE BASIS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY TAKE SOME ACTION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. IT'S JUST ENTIRELY TOO UNCERTAIN. IS IT POSSIBLE? HOWEVER, IF WE CHOSE, WE COULD TABLE FOR ANOTHER 60 DAYS, IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY. THAT WAS THE BASIS LAST TIME WE WERE HERE. AARON, WHAT, WHAT IS THE, UM, PROCESS WITH LIKE ONCE YOU'RE IN THE PROGRAM YOU GET UNENROLLED IF SAY LIKE THE, OR IF THE WORDING CHANGES TO EXEMPT LIKE LOTS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE ONE YOU LIVE IN OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, LIKE DOES SHE GET UNENROLLED IN THE FUTURE? LIKE WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? WHAT IF IT'S LESS THAN A YEAR FROM NOW? THAT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DESCRIBED IN THE NEW LEGISLATION. AND I HAVE ONE I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR YOU AND THAT IS, UM, I'VE OFTEN HEARD OF THINGS THAT WERE GRANDFATHERED IN, MEANING THIS WAS A VACANT LAW IN GOOD SHAPE BEFORE THE LAW. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY THAT SHE COULD BE GRANDFATHERED AS EXEMPT OR THAT THAT PROPERTY COULD BE GRANDFATHERED AS EXEMPT AS I READ THE STATUTE THAT'S EXPRESSLY PRECLUDED. SO IT TALKS ABOUT BEING REGISTERED IN THE PROGRAM WITHIN 30 DAYS, I BELIEVE. I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT, BUT IF THERE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF BECOMING VACANT OR WITHIN THE PASSING OF THE LAW. I SEE STEVE, GO AHEAD. SO ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO RAISE, WHICH IS THIS, GOING BACK TO QUESTION OF MERGING LIES, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A 60 OR 90 DAY DEFERRAL IF THE OWNER WOULD MAKE A COMMITMENT TO QUICKLY PURSUE THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING THE LOTS. AND AGAIN, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT MERGING THE LOTS WOULD IN FACT EXEMPT IT. SO QUESTION FOR STANCE IS IF MERGING WOULD BE A VIABLE SOLUTION. AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE ANSWER TO THAT, THE QUESTION FOR THE OWNER IS, IF WE WERE TO DEFER, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO US TO PURSUE SUCH A MERGER? UH, YES. UH, BOARD MEMBER, UH, ASKING STEVE ASKING, UM, SO SHE DOES HAVE OPTIONS. IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHAT SHE CHOOSES TO DO. SO IF SHE CHOSE TO GO THE ROUTE OF LOT MERGING THAT AS SOON AS SHE GIVES US THOSE DOCUMENTS, PROVING THAT WE CAN TOTALLY REMOVE HER FROM THE PROGRAM IF SHE CHOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE, OR IF SHE CHOSE TO DO THE, UH, TURNING INTO A COMMUNITY, UH, PARK OR GARDEN, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER OPTION FOR HER. SO SHE DOES HAVE OPTIONS. SHE JUST HAS TO MAKE THAT DECISION WHAT'S IN HER BEST INTEREST, WHETHER SHE, WHAT WOULD SHE LIKE TO DO BECAUSE IT IS HER PROPERTY. UH, SO WE DO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLARIFY THOSE SEVEN OPTIONS OF HOW TO GET OUT OF THE PROGRAM WITH THE CURRENT . AND I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT ONE. AND LOOKING AT THE, UM, STATUTE ON 18.29 100 REMOVAL OF PROPERTY FROM REGISTRY SAYS THAT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY ALL CITY FEES AND FINES. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY BUT IT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS? YES, TECHNICALLY, IF SAY WE WERE TO CITE HER, BUT IN THIS CASE, I DON'T BELIEVE SHE HAS ANY SITES BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T NEED THE PROPERTY. SHE, SHE'LL HAVE TO PAY THOSE OUTSTANDING FEES TO US BEFORE WE REMOVE HER FROM THE PROGRAM OF OFFICIAL. THANK YOU. AND ARE, IS THERE A CITATION ON THIS PROGRAM FIRST? ANY AT THE MOMENT? THAT'S GOOD, JUST ONE 60. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? [00:25:01] I WENT THROUGH A QUESTION BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. IF YOU ARE, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS DEFERRAL, WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD TO ATTEMPT THE MERGER? YEAH, I WILL LOOK INTO IT. UM, WHEN I LEAVE, I, LIKE I SAID, SOMEONE MENTIONED TO ME A FEW YEARS AGO ABOUT DOING IT AND I NEVER REALLY PURSUED IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK I NEEDED TO. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM LOOKING INTO THAT AND SEEING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, HONESTLY. SO I THINK PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW, I'D PROBABLY HAVE TO CALL SOME ATTORNEY OR SOMETHING. I'M NOT SURE HOW IT CAN WORK, BUT I GOOGLE IT. UH, MADAM CHAIR, UH, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME INPUT ON THAT IF, UH, WE CAN ALLOW, UM, MARIANNE TO SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC. MARIANNE, PLEASE SPEAK. HI, I'M THE ZONING ADMINISTRATION OFFICER WITH THE PLANNING BUREAU. SO THE LOT MERGER PROCESS, WHETHER REQUIRE SURVEY DOCUMENTS TO BE PREPARED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHECKLIST OF ALL THE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS AND I AM THE APPROVER OF, UH, THE, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE LOT MERGER. SO AS LONG AS WE CAN MAKE SURE ALL THE REQUIRED FINDINGS CAN BE MADE, UH, WE WOULD SIGN OFF ON THAT. THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING. THE LOT MERGER FILING REQUIREMENTS ARE $2,011 AND 5 CENTS UNDER THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE. AND THEN AFTER THAT IT WOULD BE RECORDED AT THE COUNTY CLERK REPORTER'S OFFICE. AND THEN, UH, AT THE RETURN OF THAT DOCUMENT, UH, IT COULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT, UH, DEPARTMENT, UH, BUREAU, AND, UH, DOCUMENTATION OF THE MERGER IS COMPLETE AND THEN THE ASSESSOR WOULD THEN COMBINE, UH, ALL IT WOULD BE ONE RESULTING PARCEL. SO THAT'S YOU GUYS. OH, OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. , YOU WOULD START WITH A, UM, A SURVEYOR TO DRAFT ALL YOUR DOCUMENTS, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY BE A RESOURCE TO YOU AS YOU START, UH, EXPLORING THAT PROCESS. SO YES, WE ARE THE PLANNING BUREAU. SO WE ARE WITHIN THE CONVENE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. WE'RE A SISTER DEPARTMENT. AND SO I CAN START BY GOING TO YOUR PAGE OVER, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR CONCERNS OR EMOTION? ERIN, I HAVE A CONCERN THAT WE ARE, WE ARE ENCOURAGING SOMETHING THAT'S MAKING LONG BEACH LESS AFFORDABLE, RIGHT? WHEN MS. TOBIAS GOES TO SELL HER HOUSE IN THE FUTURE, NOW SHE'S SELLING A GIANT LOT WITH THIS HOUSE. AND NOW THE PRICE OF THAT IS WAY MORE AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANNA LIVE HERE, AS OPPOSED TO IF THEY WERE STAYING SEPARATE, SHE WOULD SELL IT TO TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE. SHE MIGHT EVEN MAKE MORE MONEY, BUT THE PEOPLE BUYING THEM WILL, UH, HAVE TO PAY LESS. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT WHERE WE SHOULD BE PUSHING PEOPLE. UM, WHETHER OR NOT THAT FITS INTO THE RULES. MR. ASINS? YEAH, SO I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. UM, FROM A PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW, I SHARE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT HOUSING FROM A COMMISSION POINT OF VIEW. I DO THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT A UNIQUE CASE WHERE THE OWNER HAS SHOWN SIGNIFICANT INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AS IT HAS BEEN. AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION TO SUGGEST THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE SHOULD REFUSE TO ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY OF BLOCK MERGER BASED ON A GENERAL ISSUE, WHICH IS REALLY BEYOND OUR ROLE AS COMMISSIONERS. MY MY CONCERN GOES BACK TO THE IDEA THAT, UM, THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE INTENT OF THE LAW WHEN YOU START OUT WITH THE, WHEREAS VACANT LAWS CAUSE HARM AND IT GOES ON ABOUT ALL THE PROBLEMS. AND THIS, YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PICTURE AND IT IS NOT PROBLEMATIC AND IT HASN'T BEEN CITED. AND, UM, I THINK I'M KIND OF GOING ALONG WITH AARON IN TERMS OF CAUSING PEOPLE TO PAY MORE MONEY FOR, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? BECAUSE OTHER THAN THE CITY GOING THROUGH THE LA COUNTY RECORDS AND RECOGNIZING THERE'S A VACANT LOT, WHAT WAS DONE AND WHY SHOULD THAT COST A HUNDRED DOLLARS A YEAR? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE SINCE WE CAN'T JUST DISMISS IT OR SAY THERE ISN'T ANY, I THINK I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GIVE MR. BIAS, WE GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ANOTHER 60 DAYS AND IN THAT TIME, HOPEFULLY FIND OUT SOMETHING FROM THE CITY AS WELL AS MS. DEBI, WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD COST. AND SADLY, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE MORE THAN THE $2,000 BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE LOOKING AT A SURVEYOR AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LA COUNTY TAX DOES IF THEY JUST TAKE [00:30:01] WHAT THEY USED TO CHARGE FOR THE TWO LOTS OR IF THEY CHARGE MORE MONEY IN TERMS OF PROPERTY TAXES. AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THAT. DO I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND DISCUSSION? SO I'M OF THE SAME TWO MINDS ON THIS THAT YOU ARE. UM, SO THE OWNER MAY OR MAY NOT DECIDE THAT IT IS COST EFFECTIVE OR IN HER INTEREST TO MERGE THE TWO LOTS AND SO I WOULD, NOT SURE WHAT I'M TOLD YOU WANNA AMEND. UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I, I, UH, DISCUSSION. OKAY. DISCUSSION. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? GO? THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL JUST LIKE TO SHARE, UH, A COUPLE OF, UM, OPINIONS, UM, BECAUSE WE ARE CONCERNED OF WHAT THE CITY'S BECOMING, UM, AND HOUSING ISSUES, RIGHT? AND I'D JUST LIKE TO MENTION THAT WE ARE FACING A HOUSING CRISIS IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. THERE IS ABOUT A 4.7 MILLION HOMES THAT IN THE DEFICIT HERE IN LONG BEACH OR THE COUNTY OF LA WE HAVE IT. THERE MAY BE A PRESSURE TO DEVELOP THOSE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE MISSED QUALITY HOMES, IF NOT THE BAD HOMES, THE QUALITY OF HOMES, THE RENT GO HIGHER, RIGHT? THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE OF A MERGER, UH, OF DOING A LOT MERGER BECAUSE THEN THE PROPERTY'S LARGER AND IT BECOMES A LOT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO OTHER BUYERS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'RE SO CLOSE TO ORANGE AND PCH CLOSE TO ORANGE STREET COLLEGE, CLOSE TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, UH, WORKFORCE HOUSING IS NEEDED. SO THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS AND KIND OF LOOKING AT THAT AND A LOT OF BENEFITS FOR THE CITY TO, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DEVELOP THAT. I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM REALLY, UH, WORRIED THAT IT CAUSES, UH, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF A LOT MERGER TO GET A LAND, UM, SURVEYOR, LAND USE CONSULTANT, UM, TIME AND, AND MONEY. SO THAT'S THE ONLY CHALLENGE BECAUSE THE, THE, THE, THE LOT IS NOT, AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN ORANGE AND PCH, IT ACTUALLY LOOKS REALLY NICE AND IT'S NOT AN ATTRACTION OF BLIGHT, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACT ON THE CITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFLICTED IN THAT, BUT, UH, THE NEXT STEPS ARE A BENEFIT BOTH FOR THE LAND OWNER AND FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK? COULD YOU READ THE MOTION BACK? UM, SO YOU GUYS ARE CHOOSING TO CONTINUE THE CASE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS, OKAY. UM, AND THE MOTION WAS, UM, INITIALLY ASKING AND ISMA, UM, SO I'LL JUST TAKE ROLL CALL ON THAT SAME MOTION CHAIR. JENNA LIPSON. AYE. VICE CHAIR STEVE VASKIN. AYE. BOARD MEMBER? ISMA ENRIQUEZ AYE. BOARD MEMBER ERIN HOOPS. AYE. SECOND. AND, AND IN CORRECTION, I BELIEVE I MADE THE MOTION. AND ERIN, DID YOU SECOND IT? AND I'M GONNA TURN AND SECOND. OKAY. THIS IS THE SECOND ONE. OKAY. OKAY. THE MOTION, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WHICH MEANS IN 60 DAYS WE WILL BE REVISITING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK I'D LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER SEAT SUGGESTION. I'M SORRY, THE, THE ITEM HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VOTE. SO THE ITEM IS CLOSED FOR DISCUSSION. SORRY IF I'M CORRECT. CITY ATTORNEY? YEAH, WE NEED, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WE NEED TO REOPEN IT UP. CAN YOU WAIT 60 DAYS? WAIT 50 DAYS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THIS IS A TOUGH CASE. OBJECTIVE. OKAY, MADAM CLERK, THIS, THIS ONE MOMENT PLEASE. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. OKAY, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 2 5 [00:35:02] DASH 5 5 8 5 1. UH, 60 20 TO 60 90 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA GOCHE DEVELOPMENTS AND INVESTMENTS. LLC JOSH GOCHE OWNERS CCE CASE NUMBER CESB 2 9 6 8 2 2, SUBSTANDARD BUILDING CASE. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? SO MOVE SECOND. WE HAVE, UM, A MOTION TO HEAR THE CASE AND IT HAS BEEN, UH, MOVED BY EMAR AND SECONDED BY AARON. I THINK IT WAS OPPOSITE. MOVED BY WHO? OH, SORRY, AARON. AND SECONDED BY EASTMAN, MY DAD. YES. THANK YOU. GOT IT. I WILL NOW TURN THINGS OVER TO STAFF FOR THE REPORT. YES, MADAM CHAIR. I WANTED TO READ THE, UH, SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO STAFF REPORT. SO RECOMMEND THAT WE CONCLUDE THE HEARING, ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. DETERMINE THAT THE TWO ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 60 20 THROUGH 69 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 9 0 3 0 5 IS SUBSTANDARD AND THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THE ORDER THE OWNERS TO DEMOLISH OUR REHABIL, THE STRUCTURES AT FIRST FINDINGS DATED JULY 21ST, 2025 BY AUGUST 21ST, 2025. ALSO ORDER THE OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURES IN A SAFE AND CLEAN AND SECURE MANNER UNTIL THE DEMOLITION OR REHABILITATION IS COMPLETE. FURTHERMORE, WE WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISH A TIME NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS WITHIN WHICH SUCH REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS, OR DEMOLITION SHALL BE COMPLETED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ISSUES AS SUCH AS THE STRUCTURED FIRES, VANDALISM AND LEGAL ALTERCATION AT THIS LOCATION HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE JUNE, 2024. THAT CONCLUDES MY RECOMMENDATION. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS REBECCA HYMAN AND I'M A COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTOR WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. YOUR HONOR, ON JANUARY 2ND, 2025, CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS BEING OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE, VACANT BUILDINGS, WEED TRASH, 10 DEGREES AT 60 23 69 LONG BEACH BUILDING AN INSPECTION OF TWO SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WERE BUILT DETERIOR CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDED EXTERIOR SITING DOORS, WINDOWS THROUGH FACIA, INTERIOR VANDALISM, AND . THE TWO SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WERE DECLARED TO BE SUBSTANDARD BY NOTICE DATED MAY 14TH, 2025. THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED BY PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. A REVIEW OF THE RECORDS AND A RECENT SITE INSPECTION REVEALED THAT PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN OBTAINED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION. THIS CONCLUDES OUR REPORT AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTION. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? APPEARS THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE LINE UP IN FRONT AND SEEING NO ONE MEMBERS, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT BILL? WE'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT. IS THERE A SECOND? SO THE, THE INITIAL MOTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ITEMS SUFFICE AS APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION. OH, THANK YOU. UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE A DIFFERENT, UH, LIKE A SUBSTITUTE OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION SO WE CAN ACCEPT THE BEGINNING ONE BY HOOPS AND ENRIQUEZ TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. MY BAD. NO WORRIES. I, I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE DEMOLITION RATHER THAN GIVING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE THE BILL. YOU WANT A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT? I YOU WANT A DIFFERENT MOTION? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? UH, 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO OPTIONS HERE TO HAVE REHABILITATE OR, UH, MADAM CHAIR, I, I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THERE. SO, UH, THIS IS GONNA BE, UH, AN ORDER FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS YOU, YOU SHOULD GIVE HIM AN OPTION TO TO DEMOLISH. TO DEMOLISH OR REHABILITATE. UH, SO THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GIVE 'EM THE OPTION TO OFFEND THAT TIMEFRAME. UH, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO JUST GIVE 'EM ONE, ONE OPTION, RECOMMEND TWO OPTIONS AT THEN? SURE. YES. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH SO THE BOARD KNOWS IF THEY THEN FAIL TO DO THAT, IT GIVES THE CITY OPTIONS TO DO THINGS TO ADDRESS. OKAY. SO I MOVE TO OBJECTIVE RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THE ON THE TABLE. I A QUESTION. SURE. WAS THIS APPEALED? LIKE WHY IS THIS HERE? IT'S BEING APPEAL HERE. SO THIS COMES AUTOMATICALLY UPON A FINDING BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT A PROPERTY IS SUBSTANDARD. GOT IT. OKAY. SO IT HAS NOT BEEN, SO THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOTIFIED AND KNOWS OF THE HEARING AND CHOSE NOT [00:40:01] TO APPEAR? YES. AND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. I BELIEVE MADAM CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON MOTION, WHICH IS TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE, OF THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU. YES. DOES THAT WORK? OF THE, OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THANK YOU CHAIR. JANET LIPSON. AYE. VICE CHAIR STEVE VASKIN. AYE. BOARD MEMBER IS ENRIQUEZ AYE. BOARD MEMBER AARON HOOPS. AYE. THANK YOU. THE MOTION HAS PASSED ALREADY HAVE DISCUSSION. THINK THAT, UM, STAFF, ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE A GENERAL QUESTION THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT WE JUST DID, BUT BEFORE TOO LOUD. THAT'S A BROWN ACT, POTENTIALLY A BROWN ACT ISSUE. I REALLY APOLOGIZE. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL OR STAFF, YOU CAN APPROACH AFTER THE MEETING. YOU JUST CANNOT, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE YOU CAN'T DAISY DOWN THE LINE WITH THE INFORMATION. UM, SO MIGHT THAT'D BE A GOOD START THOUGH, FOR GETTING SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. THANK YOU. WE NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. OH, I'M SORRY FOR A MOMENT. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU CHAIR. WE ARE READY TO, YES, CONTINUE AGAIN. GREAT. MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE FOURTH AGENDA ITEM? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 2 5 DASH 5 5 8 5 2. TRI CODE ADOPTION PRESENTATION. MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'LL MOVE TO HEAR THE ITEM. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. MR. ASINS MADE THE MOTION AND YOU SECOND IT. AND I JUST LIKE TO, UM, MENTION, UH, POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE IS THAT I NEED TO LEAVE HERE AT THREE O'CLOCK. AND SO, AND, AND I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE BECAUSE I KNOW WE WILL THEN NOT HAVE A FORUM, BUT THAT IS MY CONCERN. SO LET ME TURN THINGS OVER TO THE STAFF FOR THE REPORT. THERE'S JUST ONE MOMENT WE'RE HANDLING TEXT. I THINK WE HAVE REASON TO BE CAUTIOUS OF THE OPTIMISTIC IS ABOUT 20 MINUTES. NO, I JUST SAID, I JUST, I NO, THAT'S, I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. WE CAN DISCUSS. PLEASE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OKAY. [00:45:04] ALRIGHT, SORRY ABOUT THAT. UM, HI, MY NAME IS GREGORY BOWSER. I'M A SENIOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WITH THE, UH, BUILDING AND SAFETY BUREAU. UM, MS. LIPSON, I APPRECIATE YOUR, UM, YOUR TIME CONSTRAINTS. I AM HOPING THIS WILL BE ABOUT 20 MINUTES, UM, 20, MAYBE 30, I ALWAYS SAY. BUT, UH, WE'RE, WHAT THIS IS, UM, AGAIN, AS ALWAYS, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HEARING THIS. THIS IS, I'M HOPING TO BE OUR LAST, UM, LAST PRESENTATION RELATED TO THE, UH, 2025 CODE ADOPTION. UM, I WILL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE DETAILS, BUT WE DID HAVE SOME, UH, SOME STATUTORY ITEMS THAT CAME INTO PLAY THAT HAVE, UH, MODIFIED OUR APPROACH TO THIS PROCESS. SO, UM, I'LL, I'LL GET THROUGH THE, THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT WE HAD AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION AND THEN, UH, TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE MAY HAVE AND THEN CARRY ON. SO, UM, JUST A BRIEF REMINDER. UH, THE UAL ADOPTION PROCESS HAPPENS EVERY THREE YEARS. IT'S STATUTORILY REQUIRED. UM, WE PRESENT AS PART OF A VAC HEARING, UH, TO FULFILL PUBLIC HEARING, UM, DESIRES THROUGH THE CITY. UM, AND, UH, IT'S ALSO A CONVENIENT TIME FOR US TO MAKE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, UM, TO MUNICIPAL CODE OUTSIDE OF JUST SPECIFICALLY ADOPTING OUR, OUR BILLING VERSION OF THE BUILDING CODES. UM, I'LL, I'LL MENTION, UM, THERE WAS AN ASSEMBLY BILL THAT WAS PASSED RECENTLY. UM, IT WAS ASSEMBLY BILL ONE 30. IT WAS ACTUALLY A BUNCH OF, UH, TRAILER BILLS ATTACHED TO A HOUSING BILL, PART OF THE BUDGET, UM, UH, BUDGETARY PROCESS OF THE STATE. UM, THIS BILL THAT WAS PASSED ACTUALLY, UM, HAS IN MANY WAYS INHIBITED OUR ABILITY TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODES AS IT RELATES TO RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. UM, SO SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE, WE WERE LOOKING TO MAYBE DO, WE'RE HAVING TO KIND OF PULL OUT OF THIS PROCESS AND LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS. SO, UM, WE'LL GET INTO, I'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE. BUT, UM, SO WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE IS, IS A MUCH MORE SIMPLIFIED, UM, UH, UH, RESULT FROM THAT. OKAY. SO THE, UH, AMENDMENT I'M GONNA GO OVER TO TODAY, THEY MAY PROVIDE CLARITY ON SOME OF THE LANGUAGE. THEY COULD UPDATE A REQUIREMENT OR IN SOME CASES PROVIDE A NEW REQUIREMENT. SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE, UM, FUTURE MEETINGS, WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT AT THE END. UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL MEETING TIMES ON AUGUST 18TH, THE NEXT PI MEETING. AND THEN AS NEEDED, UM, WE'VE GOTTEN, UM, WE'VE GOTTEN OCCURRENCE THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO A SPECIAL MEETING ON THE 25TH IF NEEDED. BUT AS I SAID, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GONNA BE, SO, UM, AND THEN WE'RE STILL LOOKING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 21ST OF THIS YEAR. WE'RE FIRST READING, UM, WITH ADOPTION, HOPEFULLY FOLLOWING ON NOVEMBER 11TH. SO THE, THE FOCUS IS FOR THIS PRESENTATION THAT THE TYPES OF CHANGES, WE'LL SEE, YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT BASICALLY THERE'S TWO TYPES. THERE'S EDITORIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES. THESE ARE GENERALLY SMALL THINGS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, RELATE TO EITHER THE, UH, ROLES OF INDIVIDUALS, UH, PROCESSES, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR MINISTERIAL REQUIREMENTS. UM, THEY MIGHT CLARIFY SOME LANGUAGE, THEY COULD BE EDITORIAL IN NATURE FIXING TYPE, THAT SORT OF THING. THEY'RE NOT, UM, TECHNICAL CHANGES. UH, THE OTHER ASPECT OF THOSE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. THESE ARE MORE TECHNICAL, UM, EXCUSE ME. UM, AND THEY WILL ADDRESS, THEY BASICALLY ADDRESS HOW THINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND DIFFERENCES TO HOW THOSE THINGS MIGHT BE CONSTRUCTED. ALRIGHT. UM, THE CHANGES WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY RELATE SOLELY TO TITLE 18, WHICH IS THE LONG BEACH BUILDING STANDARDS CODE. UM, AND THEY ARE AT THIS POINT SOLELY PROPOSED BY A BILLING SAFETY BUREAU. UM, THESE IN GENERAL ARE MORE SUBSTANTIVE THAN THE PRESENTATION I GAVE IN MAY, UM, BUT ONLY SLIGHTLY. ALRIGHT? UM, YOU ALL HAVE THE, UM, THE BASIS OF THIS PRESENTATION IN, IN YOUR, UH, BLUE BOOK, UH, BUT IT'S ALSO, UM, PROVIDED ON OUR WEBSITE, UM, IN ITS ENTIRETY ALONG WITH PAST PRESENTATIONS. OKAY? UM, SO AS WE'VE TALKED BEFORE, ANY CHANGES THAT WE MAKE TO ACTUAL BILLING CODE REQUIREMENTS, UM, HAVE TO BE ON THE BASIS OF A GEOLOGICAL ATO GRAPHIC CONDITION, A CLIMACTIC CONDITION, OR A, AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION. UM, THOSE THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVE EDITORIAL DO NOT BE, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE BASIS. YOU'VE NOW, I THINK, HEARD THAT THREE TIMES. SOME OF YOU MAY BE MORE, I KNOW STEVE HEARD IT LAST TIME, ROUND TWO. UM, BUT, UH, I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. SO THIS CHANGE, ACTUALLY, I'M GONNA SKIP THROUGH THIS BECAUSE THIS CHANGE IS ACTUALLY THE SAME AS ANOTHER. UM, WE ARE, WE'RE ACTUALLY PULLING IT OUT OF THIS PROCESS, BUT I STILL, [00:50:01] I STILL WANTED TO PRESENT IT TO THE GROUP. UM, IT RELATES TO A, UM, TO REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE A PERMANENT ENCLOSURE AROUND SWIMMING POOLS. SO CURRENTLY THE, UM, UH, SAFETY POOL SWIMMING, UH, SORRY, SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, UM, WHICH IS IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, REQUIRES THAT PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS OR SPAS HAVE, THEY NEED TO DRIVE TWO OUT OF SEVEN OPTIONS FOR, UM, UH, DROWNING PREVENTION MEASURES. UH, THEY GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD BE THINGS LIKE A FENCE, THEY COULD BE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ALARMS, UH, PULL FLOAT, PULL COVERS, UM, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SO THERE'S, THERE'S SEVEN OF THEM YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM. UM, BUT WHAT IT DOESN'T DO IS, IS MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT YOU HAVE A PERMIT ENCLOSURE. SO IN ESSENCE, YOU COULD HAVE A POOL THAT HAS ALL THESE SAFETY FEATURES, WHICH IN MOST CASES ARE IN SOME SENSE REMOVAL. UM, AND WHICH A COMMON SENSE APPROACH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TAKE, UM, SOME, UH, SOME OBJECTION TO. UM, SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN THIS REVISION, AND I'LL SHOW YOU THE, THE FORM THAT IT LIKELY WILL BE IN, UM, IS ACTUALLY INTRODUCING A CHANGE THAT WILL REQUIRE ONE OF THE SET, I'M SORRY, ONE OF THE TWO MANDATORY MEASURES BE A PERMANENT ENCLOSURE. SO YOU, YOU'LL STILL, YOU KNOW, STILL WILL COMPLY WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENT, BUT IT WILL GO IN, IN ADDITION TO THAT, GO, GO FURTHER TO REQUIRE THAT ONE OF THE SEVEN OR THAT THE TWO THAT YOU CHOOSE FROM THE SEVEN, ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE THAT PERMANENT ENCLOSURE. UM, JUST REALLY THE, THE REALITY IS, IS IF IT'S NOT IN PLACE ALL THE TIME, IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE ALL THE TIME. SO, UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE THOUGHT BEHIND THAT. OKAY. SO I'LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND WHEN I SHOW YOU THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE. UM, NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS SECTION 1806 0.190. UH, SOME, THE NEXT SERIES THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE ARE A LITTLE BIT OF CLEANUP. WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT, UM, REFERENCES CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS BASED ON CERTAIN DATES. UM, A LOT OF THOSE DATES AND, YOU KNOW, IN SOME CASES ARE 30%, 40 YEARS AGO, ET CETERA. SO, UM, IN SOME CASES THEY NEED TO BE IN PLACE BECAUSE IT'S RELATIVE TO A CONDITION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE PRIOR TO THAT. BUT IN THIS, IN THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THESE ARE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR, OR NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. SO THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T APPLY ANYMORE. SO, UH, WE'RE REMOVING THE LANGUAGE HERE THAT RELATED TO, UM, FEE THAT WAS IMPOSED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1ST. ALL FEES AT THIS POINT ARE IMPOSED ON THERE AFTER THAT DATE, UH, NINE SIX. SO WE'RE PULLING THAT ONE OUT. UM, AND THE SAME APPLIES HERE FOR THE, THE NEXT, A FEW, YOU KNOW, THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE FILED, UM, PRIOR TO 2007, UH, APRIL 3RD. SO OBVIOUSLY, UH, THOSE PROJECTS HAVE LONG BEEN EXPIRED BILLS OR OTHERWISE. UM, SO WE'VE REMOVED THAT LANGUAGE IN BOTH OF THESE SITUATIONS. THESE ALL RELATE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, RELATE TO, UM, DEVELOPMENT, UH, DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES. SO THEY'RE, UM, RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION FEES, PARKS AND REC FEES, UM, POLICE, UH, FACILITIES FEES AND FIRE FACILITIES FEES. SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UM, THEY'RE CODIFIED FEES THAT COME FROM OUR, OUR, UH, SCHEDULE, UM, THAT ARE, ARE SET IN PLACE BY ORDINANCE. UM, BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST, THIS WAS CARRY OVER LANGUAGE FROM WHEN THIS WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN 2007, UM, TO BASICALLY SET THAT DATE. WHEN DOES IT APPLY, WHEN THIS APPLY? SO AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE NOT A LONGER NECESSARY OR NOT. OKAY. UM, SAME THING HERE. THIS ONE RELATES TO, TO THE PARK FEE. SO FEE ADJUSTMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST, 2008. WE'RE LONG PAST THAT. UM, AND THEN TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT WAS DUE ON 20 20 12, UH, 2012, SO THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARY. OKAY. UM, ONE MORE ITEM HERE, UH, RELATING TO TENANT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE, UH, CRI PROGRAM, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT USES, BUT THERE IS A, UM, RESPONSIBILITY, UM, THAT THE OWNER HAS TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, UM, STARTING ON THAT DATE. WELL, OBVIOUSLY IT'S LONG PAST THAT DATE, SO, UM, ALRIGHT. UH, NEXT ITEM. THIS IS JUST AN EDITORIAL CHANGE. UM, THE NEW CODE ADDED ONE ADDITIONAL FOOTNOTE, SO ACTUALLY PUT OURS OUT OF SEQUENCE. SO WHAT WAS ORIGINAL FOOTNOTE? K IS NOW J BUT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SEEING EVERYTHING, THAT'S, UM, OKAY. NOW, NOW GOING BACK TO OUR SWIMMING POOL ITEMS. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THIS. THE FIRST IS, AS I MENTIONED, THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PERMIT ENCLOSURE. AND, UM, AS YOU SEE IT IN THIS FORM, UM, THIS IS [00:55:01] LIKELY WHERE IT WILL RESIDE. UM, WHEN WE GO TO COUNSEL, UM, IT'LL BE AN AMENDMENT IN THE, IN THIS CASE, IN THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, THERE IS A, A COMPARABLE ONE IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. UM, BUT BASICALLY IT'S, IT'S AMENDING LANGUAGE THAT, THAT CITES THE, UM, HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. SO WE'RE JUST ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO THAT. SO AGAIN, WE HAVE, UM, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT ENCLOSURE. THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS ALSO WHERE YOU HAVE THAT ENCLOSURE AND YOU HAVE CENSUS. UM, WE ARE ADDING LANGUAGE THAT, UM, REFERENCES REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GATES THAT OCCUR IN THOSE. SO, UM, AND MOST OF THOSE ARE SPELLED OUT, UH, BY STATUTE. THEY HAVE TO SWING OUT, THEY HAVE TO BE CERTAIN HEIGHT, THEY NEED, UH, THAT HARDWARE TO BE ABOVE CERTAIN HEIGHTS. UH, BUT THE ONE THING WE ARE ADDING TO THIS, UM, IS THAT THE GATE SHALL NOT EXCEED 48 INCHES. UM, IN SOME CASES PEOPLE WILL PUT A, THE, UH, GATE AROUND THEIR POOL AND THEN THEY'LL INCLUDE A, A VEHICLE ACCESS KEY, OR THEY'LL INCLUDE SOME OTHER LARGER THINGS. SO, UM, A COUPLE THINGS HAPPEN WITH THAT. YOU END UP WITH GATES THAT ARE VERY LARGE, VERY HEAVY, UM, THEY'RE HARDER TO CONTROL. UM, ONCE THEY'RE OPEN, THEY'RE EASIER TO LEAVE OPEN THAN TO CLOSE. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE HARDER TO MAINTAIN AS A, UM, AS A SELF ACTION, SELF-CLOSING, UM, ITEM. SO, UM, SO THAT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE ARE ADDING, UH, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF, OF LA AND SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN. ALRIGHT, UM, THIS ITEM HERE IS FOR 18 4 9 0 3 0. UM, IT'S, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ACTUAL CONTENT. IT IS MORE EDITORIAL IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, IT WAS JUST KIND OF STRANGELY WORDED AND ALSO, UM, IT DIDN'T QUITE ALIGN WITH THE, UH, THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE, UM, EXISTING BUILDING CODE, EXISTING BUILDING CODE. SO WE'VE, WE'VE GONE AND CLEANED IT UP. AGAIN, THE, THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS DO NOT CHANGE AT ALL, UM, BUT IT JUST CLEANS UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BASICALLY CHANGING THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED, BUT IT'S THE SAME REQUIREMENT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF SAYING NO CHANGE SHALL BE MADE FOR USE OR OCCUPANCY, WE'RE NOT SAYING A CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT BE MADE. SO JUST THE WAY IT IS. BUT AGAIN, IT'S SOME OF IT'S FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE WITH THE ACTUAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, UM, ET CETERA. SO I BELIEVE THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THIS, AND, AND AGAIN, THIS AMENDMENT IS ALREADY EXISTING IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATES TO THE, THE LINE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. I THINK THAT THAT LINE AND WHAT FOLLOWS IS WHAT WHAT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN PROPOSED SEVERAL CYCLES AGO. UM, AND, AND WHAT'S BEING CARRIED OVER. UM, THIS SECTION, YOU HAVE THE COMPLETE, COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION STARTING ON PAGE SEVEN. UM, IN THE BLUE BOOK, UH, EXHIBIT, UM, IT RELATES TO, IT'S THE SAME ITEM BEING CARRIED OVER SECTION BY SECTION. AND JUST SO I CAN EXPLAIN THIS, THE, THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, UM, UP UNTIL WELL THROUGH THE 2022 EXISTING BUILDING CODE WAS ADOPTED. UM, ONLY A PORTION OF IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE STATE. SO I THINK IT'S CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH SIX, AND THAT, THAT INCORPORATES SOME GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO INCLUDED A PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD METHOD. SO IT WAS, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATELY IT WAS A COOKBOOK APPROACH TO, UM, TO DESIGNING, UH, AN EXISTING BUILDING OR, OR MAINTAINING CERTAIN MINIMUM, UH, SAFETY STANDARDS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DID X, Y, Z, THEN YOU COMPLIED WITH THE CODE AND YOU KNOW, IT ALL MET, THEY, THERE ARE OTHER METHODS THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED THAT WERE JUST, HADN'T BEEN, UM, I GUESS IT DEMONSTRATED TO THE, TO THE STATE'S, UM, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR, LIKE, BASICALLY TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WERE WILLING TO APPROVE IT. UM, BUT THAT INCLUDES THE WORK AREA METHOD. AND SO THE SECTIONS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE ALL RELATED TO THE WORK AREA METHOD. THEY HAVE, UM, THEY HAVE, IT BASICALLY IS SAYING, OKAY, FOR CERTAIN AREAS OF WORK, UM, YOU HAVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE. THEY'RE GENERALLY RELATED TO FIRE, LIKE SAFETY, THEY'RE RELATED TO, UM, EGRESS TO, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, IN, IN ALL OF THOSE CASES, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS, THEY REFER YOU BACK TO THE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE THE SAME AS WHAT WAS IN THE PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD. SO WE HAD MADE AMENDMENTS TO THE, UH, EXCUSE ME, TO THE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE PAST. AND SO NOW FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE, NOW THAT WE HAVE THESE OTHER METHODOLOGIES THAT ARE REFERRING BACK TO THE SAME, UM, STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE JUST ADDING THAT LANGUAGE. SO I'LL, I'LL SHOW IT HERE. AND I, I KNOW THAT'S A LONG WAY TO GET TO, BUT BASICALLY WE'RE JUST APPLYING THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THIS TO THE SAME CASES THAT GO THROUGHOUT. SO, UM, SO I, I SHOWED PART [01:00:01] OF ONE HERE, BUT BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE REQUIREMENT AGAIN HERE, IT'S, IT'S REALLY THE LAST, UM, THE LAST SENTENCE, SORRY, THE LAST TWO SENTENCES OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH HERE. SO, UM, ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION, UM, YOU KNOW, AND THIS SECTION OF THE CODE AS DETERMINED BY THE BILLING OFFICIAL MAY BE USED, SORRY, SO THAT, THAT LANGUAGE WAS, WAS ALREADY IN, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE PREVIOUS ADOPTION. UM, AND THEN ALSO THE LAST SENTENCE WHERE WE REFERRED TO THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE HAVE UNDER FORCED MASONRY SHOT FOR CHAPTER 16, 18 68. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY, THAT'S REALLY THE, THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, BUT THIS IS, THE REST OF IT IS ALL JUST COPIED AND PASTED FROM IN THERE. SO AGAIN, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL, I THINK IT'S FOUR PAGES OF, OF DIFFERENT CHANGES THAT'S IN YOUR, UM, YOUR , THAT CHANGE GETS CARRIED OVER. SO THERE, THERE'S MINOR CHANGES. SOME OF IT RELATES TO, UM, UH, ALTERATIONS, SOME OF IT RELATES TO, UM, ADDITIONS. UM, BUT, BUT THE GENERAL CONCEPT IS THE SAME. IT POINTS TO A CERTAIN SECTION IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE THAT GIVES YOU THE STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS AND THEN GIVE SOME EXCEPTIONS WHEN YOU DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW THOSE. SO, UM, NEXT ITEM HERE, UH, RELATE, REALLY JUST TYPE OF SUPPOSED TO SAY WASTE, JUST TYPE AS WAS. SO WE ADDED THE T ON THAT ONE . UM, AND THEN THIS ADDITIONAL ONE, THIS IS A, UH, A REQUIREMENT THAT'S FOR VOLUNTARY STRENGTHENING OF, UM, UH, THIS ONE I THINK IT'S FOR, UH, SOFT STORY CONDITIONS. UM, BUT IT'S JUST A, A OUT OF DATE REFERENCE. SO THE ORIGINAL STANDARD THAT WAS IN THE IS 15 20 18, UM, AN CAWC, WHICH IS THE AREA WOOD COUNCIL'S, UM, UH, UH, GUIDELINES FOR, UH, USE WITH WOOD DESIGN. SO IT'S JUST BEING REFERENCED TO THE, TO THE CURRENT STANDARD, UH, WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE, UH, CAL BUILDING STANDARDS. AND THEN I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FINAL ITEM I HAVE. UM, SO THIS RELATES TO, UH, METHANE GAS MITIGATION RANGE. SO, UM, WE ARE, WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT MAKING ANY SUBSTATIVE CHANGES TO THE, TO THE METHANE, UH, REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, WE'RE ADDING THIS, UM, ITEM HERE AND PREVIOUSLY THE, THE ORDINANCE OR THE SECTION OF THE CODE READ, YOU KNOW, FOR PROJECTS THAT OCCUR FOR THESE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION, UM, SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION THAT INVOLVES REMOVAL OF MORE THAN 50% OF UM, UH, PROJECTS, ET CETERA. AND THAT OCCUR IN CERTAIN AREAS. SO, YOU KNOW, KNOWN METHANE AREAS OVER PREVIOUS LANDFILLS. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF WHERE IT OCCURS. ALL THOSE PROJECTS WERE REQUIRED TO MEET THE, UM, UH, TO HAVE METHANE MITIGATION MEASURES PUT IN PLACE. UM, WHERE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A, A KIND OF A, A GAP IN THE COVERAGE, SO TO SPEAK, WAS WHERE YOU HAD, UM, EITHER NON BUILDING STRUCTURES, UM, SO LIKE A, A PHOTOVOLTAIC, UM, CARPORT KIND OF THING. YOU SEE A PARKING LOT LOT THERE, A BIG, UM, UH, SOLAR ARRAYS, UM, OR JUST GENERAL ELECTRICAL WORK THAT HAPPENS UNDERGROUND. SO IF YOU'RE IN ONE OF THESE METHANE AREAS, YOU'VE GOT METHANE GAS THAT CAN SEEP OUT. IF YOU HAVE CONDUITS THAT ARE UNDERGROUND THAT GO INTO VAULTS, THAT GO INTO ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, THAT METHANE GAS CAN OVER TIME SEEP INTO THE, YOU KNOW, THE CONDUIT AND COLLECT IN THESE RECEPTACLES. YOU'VE GOT ELECTRICITY AS A SOURCE OF IGNITION, SO IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS CONDITION. SO BEFORE, WITHOUT THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE ADDING, IT BASICALLY SEEMED LIKE, OKAY, ANY PROJECT THAT MET THESE REQUIREMENTS, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MEET ANY OF THE METHOD REQUIREMENTS. UM, THAT WAS A BIT OF AN OVERSIGHT. SO ADDING THIS LANGUAGE BACK IN, IT SAYS EVEN IF THE BUILDING IS, UM, IS EXEMPTED FROM MEETING METHANE, UH, REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU'RE DOING SUB SUB GRADE WORK WITH THIS ELECTRICAL SCOPE, YOU STILL WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN THEY'RE ALL SPELLED OUT IN CHAPTER FIVE, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, UH, WHICH BASICALLY DEALS WITH INSTALLATIONS AND HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS. SO, UM, AND, AND IT IS, IT'S NOT A HUGE REQUIREMENT. I MEAN THE, THE WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THESE IS GENERALLY PRETTY, UH, PRETTY MINOR. THERE'S SOME SEALS AND OTHER THINGS THAT BE PUT IN, BUT IT'S, IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT. UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HEAR EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IN THE NEWS ABOUT RANDOM EXPLOSIONS AND, AND UM, UH, VAULTS, UNDERGROUND VAULTS AND TRANSFORMER VAULTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, UM, IT HAPPENS AND IT'S, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO KNOW. UM, SO, SO WE INCLUDED THE REQUIREMENT THAT POINTS PEOPLE TO THAT, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION WHERE TESTING IS [01:05:01] SHOWN THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN A METHANE AREA, THE ACTUAL TEST METHANE LEVELS ARE SO LOW OR THEY'RE TESTED AS NON-EXISTENT THEN. SO, SO THAT, THAT WAS THE, UM, I GUESS THAT WAS ALL WE HAD FOR THAT ONE. UM, I THINK THERE WERE, THERE WERE SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT I TALKED ABOUT IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, UM, RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE RELATING TO, UM, CONSTRUCTION OF YOUR OIL WELLS AND OTHER ITEMS WHICH WE HAVEN'T ABANDONED, BUT THEY, UM, IN RESPONSE TO THIS, UH, ASSEMBLY BILL THAT LIMITS OUR RELATED TO, TO MODIFY, UM, WE MODIFY THE CODES, WE, WE ARE HAVING TO FIND DIFFERENT CODES. SO THOSE, WELL, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THOSE. IT'S IMPORTANT THINGS THAT THE SAVINGS TO WORK ON. BUT, BUT AS FAR AS OUR, OUR TRIANNUAL ADOPTION PROCESS, UM, THIS IS THE EXTENT OF IT. AND SO EVERYTHING THAT I'VE PRESENTED, UM, TODAY, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES, 'CAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE PULLED OUT AS A SEPARATE THING. AND EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS TWO MEETINGS, UM, ARE ACTUALLY, UH, KIND OF IN BULK OF, OR THE EXTENT OF WHAT WOULD BE PRESENT OR TO COUNCIL FOR OUR PROPOSED, UM, ADOPTION ISSUE. SO, UM, WITH THAT, I MEAN, WE HAD, WE HAD A TENTATIVE, UM, MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST, BUT AS I SAID, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TO PRESENT. UM, SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY, UM, BUT I ALSO AT THIS TIME, IF, IF THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE AND, AND CHAIRWOMAN IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, UM, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO ACTUALLY, UH, MOVE FORWARD, UM, WITH OUR AMENDMENTS AND A RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO PROCEED WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TO COUNSEL. THANK YOU, MR. BOWSER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? MR. UH, EV, EVERYTHING SEEMS, THANK YOU FOR, UH, GREAT PRESENTATION. UM, AND VERY CLEAR. UM, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT, UH, IT, IT, IT MAINLY APPLIES TO ADMINISTRATION TYPE, UM, WRITING AND TYPOS AND THAT NATURE. AND THEN THERE IS 10:42 PM CERTAIN, UH, INFORMATION IN HERE THAT WOULD APPLY TO SPECIFIC TRAITS THAT WOULD BE BEYOND, OR, OR KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING STUFF, STORIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT INFORMATION AND IT SEEMS THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF PEOPLE. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, WE MOVE AND APPROVE. OKAY. IT'S NOT QUITE TIME FOR THE MOTION YET BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO HAVE OH, CAN DO WE HAVE A MOTION ALREADY? WE HAVE THE MOTION UNLESS THERE'S, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON TABLE. YES, GO AHEAD. SO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WITH REGARD TO 1869, DID YOU INDICATE THAT THAT REFERS TO, TO, UM, WHAT'S CALLED SOFT STORY RECORD? LET ME, LEMME CONFIRM THAT. UM, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING OUT, I'LL RAISE MY QUESTION. UM, WHILE, ACTUALLY I SHOULD LET YOU ANSWER FIRST. THERE'S A HANDFUL. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF VOLUNTARY, UM, STANDARDS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF, UM, HAZARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE IN THE, IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE CURRENTLY. UM, THIS ONE, OH, I, I'M SORRY, I MISSPOKE. THIS ACTUALLY RELATES TO, UH, WEAK CRIPPLE WALLS AND UNBOLTED SILLS. SO IN THE PAST THERE WERE STANDARDS PUT IN PLACE SO THAT IF PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY WANTED TO, UM, UPGRADE THEIR BUILDING, THERE WERE SOME STANDARDS THAT YOU USED TO, TO DO SO. UM, AND SO THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ONE THAT RELATES TO THAT FOUNDATION BOLT CRILE WALLS, I, I WILL ASK A QUESTION ABOUT SOFT RECORD, BUT MY, MY UNDERSTANDING HAD BEEN THAT IF PRESENT THAT IS VOLUNTARY AT LONG BEACH, IT'S BECOME MANDATORY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND THAT LONG BEACH WAS MOVING TOWARD MANDATORY SOFT STORY RETROFIT PROBABLY FOR PROPERTY DE 40 MINUTES OR MORE. DO YOU KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THAT? THIS IS A POTENTIAL HAZARD ISSUE UP. YEAH, SO THE HAZARD IS DEFINITELY THERE. SO THE, THE VOLUNTARY STANDARD ALREADY EXISTS. IT ACTUALLY EXISTS IN 1870, UM, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. UH, WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW IS ACTUALLY A PROCESS TO UPDATE 1870. IT WILL STILL REMAIN A VOLUNTARY, UM, UH, REQUIREMENT, BUT IT, IT BASICALLY UPDATES THE STANDARDS TO KIND OF COMMON CURRENT PRACTICE. IT'S, IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS OF WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES LIKE LA AND LA COUNTY AND SANTA MONICA ARE DOING. AS FAR AS THE, THE [01:10:01] MANDATORY REQUIREMENT AT THIS, AT THIS POINT, UM, WE ARE, WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH A PROJECT OR WITH A PROGRAM THAT IS, UH, PURELY VOLUNTARY. UM, OBVIOUSLY THE DIFFICULTY, DIFFICULTY OF THAT IS TO SOMEHOW ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY STILL DO THEIR WORK. SO THAT'S, UM, SOME OF THE DIFFICULTY WE'VE HAD IN THAT, IN THAT PROGRAM. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, HOPEFULLY BRINGING TO COUNCIL BY THE END OF THE YEAR. UM, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVE, NOT ALTERNATIVE, BUT UM, UH, INCENTIVES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED TO PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THAT WORK. UM, YOU KNOW, SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, REDUCTION IN FEES, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT ALSO WE'RE, UH, WE'RE APPLYING FOR FEDERAL. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE. THERE'S, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEETING MEETINGS THAT THERE WILL BE A HANDFUL MORE UNDER VOTE. SO, BUT THE CURRENT INTENT IS TO UPGRADE THE VOLUNTARY STANDARD AS OPPOSED TO MAKE THE MANDATORY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS THE CURRENT INTENT, YES. ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THE ASSEMBLY BILL DID. DOES THAT MEAN WE CAN'T BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE STATE? SO THE YES AND NO. SO IT BASICALLY, I THINK IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO CONSTRUCT MORE HOUSING, UM, THEY, THEY PUT A FREEZE ON THE CODED OPTIONS AND SAY, OKAY, AS OF YOU KNOW, THIS STATE, WE WILL ALLOW YOU TO ADOPT THE 2025 BUILDING CODE AS IT RELATES TO RESIDENTIAL. BUT MOVING FORWARD UNTIL 2020, UH, 2031, SO SIX, SORRY, SIX YEAR, EXCUSE ME. SO BASICALLY TWO OLD CYCLES, UM, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADOPT THE NEXT CODES WITH THAT. UM, THE, THE KIND OF EXCEPTION AND, AND YOU CANNOT MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE THAT'S IN PLACE. NOW, THE, THE EXCEPTION IS IF THE, IF THE REVISION OR THE AMENDMENT IS IN PLACE PRIOR TO, I THINK IT'S SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025, UM, THEN YOU CAN CARRY PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS FORWARD AS LONG AS THEY RELATE TO SOME OF THINGS. SO, YOU KNOW, THE STUFF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I'M, I'M NOT CHANGING THE, THE REVISION, BUT IT'S GETTING RENUMBERED OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. SO THOSE CAN BE CARRIED OVER. SO ONE OF THE APPROACHES THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT, UM, IS, IS THE ITEMS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT, WE'RE PULLING OUT, THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE FEEL STRONGLY ARE, ARE IMPORTANT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO GET IN. AND SO THEY'RE BEING PULLED OUT AND WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THOSE KIND OF AHEAD OF, OF, OF THE GENERAL TRIENNIAL PROCESS AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THEM APPROVED PRIOR TO THAT DATE SO THAT WE CAN STILL GET THEM IN EFFECTIVE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE ASSEMBLY BILL DID. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, BUT THEY RELATE TO, UM, BASICALLY IF THERE'S A, AN EMERGENCY FINDING. SO IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT COMES TO THE STATE BECAUSE THE FIRE ARE THERE SOMETHING, THEN POTENTIALLY WE COULD HAVE SOME OF THOSE. UM, BUT, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT THAT STANDARD'S DIFFICULT TO TO JUST BECAUSE WE SEE A, A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED. UM, AND THEN THERE'S SOME OTHERS, BUT, BUT ULTIMATELY IT, IT KIND OF, UM, IT, OUR HANDS RETIRE WHEN IT COMES TO, TO DOING MUCH MORE SO. AND IT, LIKE I SAID, IN THE PAST WE, WE'VE USED THE, THE ADVENT OF, UM, THE TRIANGULAR ADOPTION TO KIND OF DO A LOT OF OUR CLEANUP AND LIKE GRAB OTHER THINGS THAT WE WERE LIKE, OH, WE'VE BEEN MEANING TO DO THAT OR THAT THIS NEEDS CLARITY OR, OR WHATEVER IT COULD BE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE LIMITED THIS TIME AROUND. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, UM, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS PRESENTATION OR DO WE NEED A NEW MOTION IF WE CHOOSE TO ADOPT? WE'RE ALL SET. WE'RE ALL SET. ALRIGHT. AND THE MOTION IS TO, SO THE MOTION IS JUST TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE PRESENTATION. IF YOU WANTED TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I WOULD SUGGEST DOING THAT IN AT ANOTHER TIME SINCE THIS ITEM ONLY WAS IN IONS TO THE PRESENTATION. SO THAT WAY THE PUBLIC CAN THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO COME TO A MEETING TO TALK ABOUT THE ADOPTIONS OF THOSE CHANGES, UM, SINCE THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT, UM, A SIGNIFICANT VOTE VERSUS JUST THE RECEIVE AND FILE OF THE PRESENTATION. EXCELLENT. AND WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL CALL FOR VOTE. SORRY. YES. UH, CHAIR GIANT LIPSON. A VICE CHAIR. STEVE VASKIN. AYE. BOARD MEMBER? ISMA. ENRIQUEZ. AYE. BOARD MEMBER AARON HOOPS. AYE. THANK YOU. UM, THE MOTION HAS PASSED TO, UM, RECEIVE AND FILE THE PRESENTATION. GOOD. THANK YOU MR. DOER. ALRIGHT, MOVING ON. IS THERE A MANAGER'S REPORT? UH, YES MA'AM. CHAIR JUST WANTED TO GET AN UPDATE. SO WE DO HAVE A NEW BOARD MEMBER. ONE MOMENT. UM, ANGEL, WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE, OH, I'M SORRY. IT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THE MANAGER'S REPORT? I'LL MOVE TO HEAR IT. I SECOND MR. ASPEN [01:15:01] MOVES TO HEAR THE MOTION. IT'S SECONDED BY MR. THANK. GO AHEAD MR. ALRIGHT. I DO HAVE SOME GOOD NEWS. WE DO HAVE A NEW BOARD MEMBER, UH, NAMED JOSEPH ER UH, BE BEGINNING ON AUGUST 18TH. HE'S GONNA BE JOINING US SO IT'LL BE A LOT BETTER. UH, YOU KEEP THESE MEETING UP. SO GET A NEW BOARD MEMBER SO YOU HAVE . AND THEN ALSO WE DO HAVE A SCHEDULED, UH, SPECIAL MEETING SET FOR AUGUST 25TH, UH, TO COMPLETE THE TRI-ANNUAL CLERK ADOPTION. AND WE'RE GONNA PROBABLY KEEP THAT DATE FOR NOW IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S NO FORM ON THE 18TH, UH, THAT WAY IT GIVES US THAT ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT HAVE COME UP. UH, WE'LL HAVE THAT DATE SET, SO WE'LL LET YOU KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF IT GETS, UH, SCHEDULED, CANCELED OR NOT. AND THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WELL, I WILL DO THE OFFICIAL QUESTION BECAUSE WE ARE WONDERING AND WE KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS APPLIED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ON WHERE THAT STANDS? HER NAME IS BARBARA ASPR. NO. YEAH. UM, OUR, OUR OFFICE DOESN'T HANDLE ANY OF THE APPOINTMENTS. THAT'S ALL THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. AND SO THE MAYOR, I'M SORRY, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. SO WE DO NOT GET NOTIFICATION UNTIL THEY ARE OFFICIALLY ON THE BOARD. SO WE DON'T KNOW ANY APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN. UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE ACTUAL APPLICANTS OR ANYBODY THAT'S, THAT COULD BE APPLYING. WE'RE JUST NOTIFIED AS SOON AS THEY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO OUR BOARD. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANYONE ELSE? EXCELLENT. WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE LINE UP IN FRONT, UM, BEFORE THAT WE WILL FURTHER, BEFORE THAT WE WILL NEED TO UM, EITHER PASS OR FAIL THE UM, STAFF REPORT. THE STAFF REPORT? YES, THE MANAGER'S REPORT. OH, I SAW THAT. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. SECOND. ALRIGHT, AS TO THE MANAGER'S REPORT, MA'AM. MCC CLERK PLEASE CALL FURTHER VOTE. OKAY. CHAIR. UH, JANET LIPSON. AYE. VICE CHAIR? STEVE ASIN. AYE. BOARD MEMBER IS ENRIQUEZ AYE. BOARD MEMBER ERIN HOOPS. AYE. THANK YOU. AND THE MOTION IS IN PASSED TO RECEIVE THE MANAGER'S REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND NOW WE WILL ONCE AGAIN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM ANYONE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK. PLEASE LINE UP IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE, SEEING NO ONE. THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING AS STATED IS AUGUST 18TH, 2025 AND I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. 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.