[00:00:05]
DO YOU PUT THAT ON RECORDER? YEAH.
THANK YOU SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? UH, CHAIRMAN LIPSON HERE.
THERE'S NO LONGER A BOARD MEMBER.
SINCE WE HAVE A QUORUM, I WOULD LIKE OUR NEWEST MEMBER TO LEAD THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
JOE, THOSE WHO ARE ABLE, PLEASE RISE, BE DRAINED OVER YOUR HEART.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER OUR GOD, INDIVISIBLE.
FOR THE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR, THANK YOU.
HERE'S THE MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM JULY 21ST, 2025.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED BY AARON.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES? WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR A MOTION.
THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL ABSTAIN BECAUSE I WAS NOT PRESENT.
ARE WE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW? IS THAT CORRECT OR NO? THAT IS ON HERE, BUT WE'RE DOING THAT LATER.
RIGHT? WE NOW GO RIGHT TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, CORRECT? YES.
THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS IN KANYE NATION IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ONE BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.0 TO PROVIDE A FORUM TO REVIEW FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS TO ABATE SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC NUISANCES.
THE BOARD ALSO ACTS AS HEARING OFFICERS AND CONDUCTS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS.
ASSESS BLOODIES 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 CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? A STAFF APPELLANT'S, WITNESSES AND OTHERS PRESENT WISHING TO TESTIFY ON AN ITEM.
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? I DO.
PLEASE READ THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 36 0 6 FALCON AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
UM, OWNERS ARE UN TWO T NEW, UM, CE CASE NUMBER CEAC 2 9 6 0 4 4 FOR THESE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL CASE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM? SO MOVE MR. ASINS MAKES THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ALRIGHT, I WILL TURN THINGS OVER.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO HEAR THE ITEM.
I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO STAFF FOR THEIR REPORT.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAD CHAIR.
UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE CONCLUDE THE HEARING.
DETERMINE THAT THE CITED PARTY IS THE CURRENT OWNER AND RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 0 6
[00:05:01]
FALCON AVENUE.AND THE VIOLATIONS LISTED DID EXIST ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED.
AND I'LL BE FOLLOWED BY THE STAFF MEMBER OF THE ACTUAL REPORT.
HELLO, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, MY NAME IS BRENT ALBANESE.
I'M A SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR WITH THE CITY OF LONG BEACH.
UM, AND SO I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, UH, THIS CASE ORIGINATED FROM A PRIOR OWNER, UM, PRIOR TO THE CURRENT OWNER RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S HOW WE, UM, RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UM, ONCE THE OWNER SOLD THE HOUSE, UM, I HAD TO OPEN A NEW CASE ON THE NEW OWNER 'CAUSE THE NEW OWNER OF PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE.
UM, SO ON THE, THE FIRST CASE CAME ON THE OLD OWNER ON MAY 22ND, 2024, UM, AT 3 6 0 6 FALCON AVENUE FOR BUILDING ALTERATIONS AND LANDSCAPE ESCAPING, INCLUDING TILING OF WALKWAY AND COURTYARD, RAISING ENTRY AT STOOP STAIRS, ALTERING AN UNAD DOORED FLAT TO A ROUNDED ENTRANCE ARCHWAY AND REPLACING FRONT FENCING AND GATE WITHOUT THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL.
UM, SO ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025, UH, I CONTINUED THE CODE VIOLATION CASE AND, UH, I REINITIATED A NEW CASE, UM, DUE TO THE OWNER'S NEW OWNERSHIP.
UM, AND THEN ON FEBRUARY 24TH, 2025, A CITATION WARNING NOTICE WAS MAIL MAILED VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER ON MARCH 5TH, 2025.
THE OWNER CALLED AND CONFIRMED THAT SHE IS THE NEW OWNER AND HAS RECEIVED AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION WARNING NOTICE.
WE DISCUSSED THE VIOLATIONS LISTED IN THE LETTER.
SHE WANTED TO SPEAK WITH THE HISTORICAL PLANNER, SO I REFERRED HER TO REFER HER TO GINA ELIAS AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON APRIL 4TH, 2025.
I WAS COPIED ON AN EMAIL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AND THE NEW OWNER ON JUNE 24TH, 2025.
A REINSPECTION REVEALED NO PROPOSED PROJECT SUBMITTED FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION APPROVAL AND PERMIT A PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION.
I CONTACTED THE PLANNING BUREAU FOR AN UPDATE REGARDING SUBJECT PROPERTY PLANNER.
BRENDA PEREZ INFORMED ME THAT SHE PREVIOUSLY INSTRUCTED THE OWNER TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED MINOR C OF COA APPLICATION AND SOME SPECIFIC PHOTOS, BUT HAS NOT HEARD FROM THE OWNER SINCE.
SO ON JUNE 25TH, 2025, A CITATION WAS ISSUED ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE EXISTING VIOLATIONS.
ON JULY 9TH, 2025, THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTED TO APPEAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION STATING THE CITED VIOLATIONS DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF CITATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF? I'M, I'M SORRY.
UM, MANAGER, I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE AS YOU MET BEFORE IS, IS MARIANNE CRONIN.
SHE'S OUR, UH, PLANNING OFFICER AND SHE'LL BE DISCUSSING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DETAILS THE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND WHY THERE'S THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION.
YES, SO MY NAME IS MARYANNE CRONIN.
I'M THE ZONING ADMINISTRATION OFFICER FOR THE PLANNING BUREAU WITHIN THE SAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
SO WHEN WE HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UH, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS ARE REQUIRED OF ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO SAID STRUCTURES.
UH, THE, THE PHOTOS SHOW AND AS WELL AS THE CITATIONS THAT, UM, THERE WERE CHANGES TO THE WALKWAY.
WHILE THAT MAY NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF NEEDING A BUILDING PERMIT, IT STILL REQUIRES A, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AS WELL AS THE ARCHWAY CHANGES IF THAT, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT, ALSO REQUIRES A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AS WELL AS THE SIDE GATES.
ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THEY STILL ARE REQUIRED IN THESE CERTAIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND WHEN THE PLANNING BUREAU REVIEWS THESE, WE HAVE A SET OF CALIFORNIA HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT PROVIDE, UH, GUIDANCE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS AND ALSO DESIGNERS IN ORDER NOT TO, UH, ERASE THE, UH, CONTEXT AND THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THESE BUILDINGS.
UH, SO IN, IN THESE GUIDELINES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE, WE DO HAVE POLICIES THAT SAY, UH, WALKWAYS SUCH AS THIS SHOULD REMAIN IN
[00:10:01]
THEIR HISTORIC LOCATION AND GENERALLY IN THEIR HISTORIC MATERIAL.UH, NOT DEVIATING TO BE MORE CONTEMPORARY, UM, MATERIALS LIKE PAVERS OR THINGS THAT WEREN'T AVAILABLE AT THE TIME WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.
UH, ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS CHANGING AN ARCHWAY, UH, TYPICALLY ON THE FRONT PORCH WOULD'VE REQUIRED A CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION BECAUSE IT'S CHANGING WHAT POTENTIALLY WAS THERE HISTORICALLY TO SOMETHING THAT'S A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORY.
SO THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE PLANNING BUREAU WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING, NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND WITH THE ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, UH, THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE REQUIRES THIS IRREGARDLESS OF THE NEED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
UH, THIS INCLUDES ALSO PAINT AND AND ROOFING TOO.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT CONTEXT FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF ON THIS THEN? COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF ON THE REPORT? I DO.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PHOTO SHOWED THE MODIFICATIONS, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS A MODIFICATION.
IT SHOWS THE CURRENT STATE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I DIDN'T SEE ANY BEFORE PICTURES OR MAYBE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT.
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STAFF THAT WORKED ON, UH, THE PLANNING SIDE USED GOOGLE STREET VIEW TO LOOK AT A PRE AND POST CONDITION, WHICH SHOWS THE DEVIATION AND THE CHANGE TO THE ARCHWAY AND THE FRONT ELEMENTS.
SO THERE'S AN, AN EXISTING CONDITION AND THEN WE CROSS REFERENCE THAT TO ANY CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BUREAU.
SO THERE WERE NO CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS ON RECORD TO CHANGE, UM, THE WALKWAY, BUT FROM, I THINK IT'S 2022 TO UM, THE CURRENT VIEW, THERE IS A CHANGE TO THAT ENTRYWAY.
SO THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE, UM, THROUGH THE PLANNER'S REVIEW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE HAD THOSE AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION.
'CAUSE FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, THERE'S NO CHANGES.
IT'S ALL THE SAME AS WHAT'S THERE NOW.
PRESUMABLY I DIDN'T DRIVE BY THERE TODAY.
MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL HAVE, UH, SCOTT PULL UP REVIEW JUST TO COVER THAT THE PREVIOUS, UM, WAY TO LOOK.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT, THANK YOU.
BETWEEN THE CHAIR IS OKAY, IT'S 2022.
AND JUST FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, WHICH EXHIBIT SHOWS THE CURRENT, THE WAY THAT IT LOOKS CURRENTLY? I BELIEVE EXHIBIT ONE, EXHIBIT THREE, THREE OR SIX.
EXHIBIT ONE, I THINK EXHIBIT ONE.
CAN YOU DO ME ONE OTHER FAVOR AND JUST ENLARGED LITTLE PICTURE THERE? WHICH ONE BEFORE ONE? YEAH.
NO, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ARCH ON THIS ONE.
BUT IT WASN'T PREVIOUS, I GUESS PREVIOUSLY.
IS IT ALSO POSSIBLE TO SEE THE WALKWAY ON THE, THERE'S, OH, THERE WE GO.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE WALKWAY CHANGE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR? YEAH, I'M NOT SURE IT'S MATERIAL TO OUR DECISION, BUT I AM CURIOUS IN TERMS OF THE
[00:15:01]
ARCHWAY, IF, UM, A REQUEST HAD BEEN MADE FOR ATE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, IS THERE ANY WAY OF KNOWING IF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN LIKELY TO BE APPROVED OR NOT? LIKELY? SO WHENEVER YOU MAKE A MODIFICATION TO THE FRONT OF A STRUCTURE, UH, WE WOULD REQUIRE EVIDENCE THAT IT HISTORICALLY LOOKED THAT WAY.SO OVER TIME, UH, WE HAVE SEEN THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO LOOK AT PHOTOS THROUGH NEWSPAPER ARTICLES OR OTHER RESOURCES THAT, UM, ACTUALLY APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND THAT SOMEBODY MODIFIED IT OVER TIME.
BUT WITHOUT THAT EVIDENCE, WE, WE CAN'T SAY SOMETHING LOOKS STYLISTICALLY APPROPRIATE.
WE HAVE TO KNOW IF IT WAS THERE HISTORICALLY OR NOT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD'VE ASKED.
IF SOMEBODY WERE TO HAVE APPROACHED US WITH A REQUEST TO CHANGE THAT ARCH, WE WOULD'VE ASKED FOR HISTORIC APPROPRIATENESS AND, UH, EVIDENCE.
AND SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THE NEW ARCH LOOKS ATTRACTIVE IS NOT MATERIAL.
'CAUSE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE NEW DESIGN IS HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE.
AND SO THERE ARE INSTANCES ACROSS THIS DESIGN, UM, THE SPANISH COLONIAL DESIGN WHERE THERE'S DIFFERENT, UH, WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN GO UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
SOME HAVE ARCHES, SOME HAVE MORE ORNATE OVER ENTRIES, SOME HAVE SQUARED OFF ENTRIES.
SO, UM, IT CAN DEPEND ON THE BUILDER.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD NOT WANT TO CREATE A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORY BY JUST GOING OVER WHAT WOULD BE TYPICAL OR NOT.
WE WOULD WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE HONORING THE, THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING.
JUST FOR FURTHER UNDERSTANDING, AM I RIGHT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THIS MODIFICATION? CORRECT.
THERE ARE NO, UM, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WERE FILED FOR THE MODIFICATIONS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND PHOTO OTHER THAN WE DO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PAINT.
AND THAT WAS PRIOR, UM, THIS WAS, UM, BACK IN THAT FIRST CITATION, THE PREVIOUS OWNER'S CITATION WHEN THAT WAS FILED.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE COMMISSION.
EXCUSE ME, THE QUESTION MR. HAN, I MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
I THINK, UH, THE WAY I HEARD IT FRAMED THERE WAS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE MODIFICATION.
THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION, THAT I HATE TO REVEAL THE LEVELS OF BUREAUCRACY HERE, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION HERE.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE WORK WAS DONE WITHOUT A COA.
ANY OTHER COMMISSION? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? GO AHEAD.
LIKE WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR LIKE ASSUMING WE ROLL OR LIKE DO DO TO NOT SITE HERE? THEN WHAT HAPPENS? I'M SORRY.
SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? LIKE DOES THIS HOUSE NOW HAVE TO BE LIKE, PUT BACK HOW IT WAS LIKE, WHAT, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? SO THE YEAH, I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD.
SO YOUR HYPOTHETICAL IS WHAT HAPPENS? YEAH, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? UM, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION HERE IS WHETHER TO HOLD THE CITATION AMOUNT.
THERE MAYBE SHOULD BE, COULD BE OTHER PROCESSES WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO EITHER REQUIRE TO, I THINK THE NEXT STEP FOR THE HOMEOWNER FRANKLY, WOULD BE TO GET WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TRY TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AFTER THE FACT.
IF THEY DETERMINE THAT THEY CANNOT GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE HISTORICAL RECORD, THEN SOME REMEDIAL ACTION COULD BE REQUIRED.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN OUR ROLE, WE ARE SIMPLY LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT WAS OBTAINED IN ORDER TO THE CULTURAL PERMIT.
AND THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ANSWER.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND THE SPECIFIC BASIS FOR THE APPEAL IN THE NOTICE FROM THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE VIOLATION DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CITATION IS ISSUED.
I KNOW THERE'S LIKE A LIMITED NUMBER OF BOXES THERE FOR THEM TO CHOOSE FROM, BUT REALLY THE, THE UNDERLYING ISSUE TO APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITATION IS APPROPRIATE.
THE CITATION IS BASED ON THE LAW, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE CERTIFICATES BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE KINDS OF MODIFICATIONS IN HISTORIC DISTANCE.
WHICH MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE IS THE DATE ON THE PICTURE WHERE WE HAVE THE ARCH NOW, UM, DO YOU HAVE A, I MEAN I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT SEEING IT, BUT ARE THERE ANY PICTURES THAT SHOW WHEN THAT ARCH WAS PUT IN AND THE, UM, NEW WALKWAY? UM, WELL WHEN, WHEN I WENT TO LOOK AT THE, UM, HOUSE AGAIN, IT WAS THE SAME AS WHEN WE FIRST HAD THE, UM, THE, THE CASE ON IT IN MAY, 2024.
[00:20:01]
BEEN NO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ALSO, SO WE KNOW NOTHING GOT DONE.UM, SO IT REMAINED IN VIOLATION WHEN I TOOK OVER THE CASE.
AND ON THE DATE OF CITATION, IT STILL REMAINED IN VIOLATION.
SO WHEN YOU STARTED THIS CASE IN MAY OF 2024, THAT ARCHWAY AND THAT WALKWAY WERE PRESENT? CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AYE UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE, THE MOTION, THE RECOMMENDED MOTION IS TO, UH, DETERMINE THE CITED PARTIES, THE CURRENT OWNER, UM, AND THAT THE VIOLATIONS LISTED DID EXIST ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED.
AND I'M WHERE IS THAT LIST OF VIOLATIONS AND CITATION IN THIS PACKAGE? I THINK I, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHERE IS THE LIST OF VIOLATIONS? UH, I DON'T CARE WHERE IT IS.
I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MOTION, THE RECOMMENDED MOTION IS TO DETERMINE THAT EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE, THE LIST OF VIOLATIONS EXISTED AND I CAN'T FIND IT.
EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE IS THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION.
AND IF YOU READ THROUGH EACH OF THOSE PAGES, IT'LL LIST ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE FOUND ON THE PROPERTY ON THAT DATE AND THE, UM, FINE AMOUNT THAT GOES WITH EACH CITATION.
IT'S ALSO SUMMARIZED UNDER THE DISCUSSION PARAGRAPH, THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH AND THE STAFF REPORT, UM, WITH TODAY'S DATE ON IT.
IT'S THE LAST SENTENCE THAT DESCRIBES, UM, THE ACTUAL CITATION IN, IN BREVITY, UM, STARTING WITH ON MAY 22ND, 2024.
I'M NOT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LETTER DATED TODAY? YES, BUT THE VIOLATIONS ARE LOCATED ON THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION, WHICH IS ITEM FIVE, SIR.
BUT THAT APPEARS TO BE IN LARGE PART, THE, THE CITATIONS IN IN EXHIBIT FIVE LOOK LIKE THEY'RE JUST WHOLESALE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO THE FACTS OF THIS.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT THREE, YOU MIGHT HAVE THE ANSWERS THAT YOU, OKAY.
ITEM ONE, EXHIBIT THREE, I THINK, WHICH STARTS OUT ABOUT THE INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY AND WHEN IT HAPPENED AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
MINE ONE'S EXHIBIT THREE IS THE PHOTO EXHIBIT TWO.
SO IN THE MEANTIME, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO THE CITATION AT EXHIBIT FIVE.
UH, THIS WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT NECESSARILY TO RESTORE THE STRUCTURE TO ITS ORIGINAL, UM, POSITION THAT PRESUMABLY ON RECEIPT OF THAT EXHIBIT I CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO GO BEFORE CULTURAL HERITAGE TO APPROVE OR COULD IT SIMPLY TAKE UPON, I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, MS.
THE, THIS IS NOT RELATE TO WHAT STEP THE HOMEOWNER MUST TAKE NEXT, EXCEPT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE WITHOUT A COA.
THAT CONDITION, THAT VIOLATION WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST UNTIL THE HOMEOWNER GETS IN TOUCH WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO EITHER GET THE COA OR RESTORE THE PROPERTY.
SO I, I FOUND THE, UH, THE LIST OF, OF THE ACTUAL VIOLATIONS, WHICH I GUESS FOLLOWS THE, THE FIRST PART IS JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST LIFTED FROM THE CODE AND THEN THERE'S THE PART IN BOLD THAT SAYS HERE THE ITEMS THAT VIOLATE THOSE PROVISIONS.
SORRY, I'M NEW AND A LITTLE SLOW.
YEAH, IT IS THE CODE, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO WHEN WE HAVE THE VIOLATIONS LISTED, WE LIST ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE CODE SECTION JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE REVIEWED EVERYTHING AND THAT A KILLING PARTY ALSO HAS AN OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE CODE SECTION.
NOW THE QUESTIONS ARE GOOD, MR. HOWARD, PLEASE KEEP ME IN COPY.
THEY'RE NOT TO NOT ANYTHING COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PROPERTY OWNER,
[00:25:01]
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? I I JUST HAVE SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU.I JUST HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE.
UM, I'M NOT REFUTING THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, PLEASE EXCUSE ME, SORRY.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
EXCUSE 36 0 6 FALCON AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 9 0 8 0 7.
UM, SO I PURCHASED A PROPERTY LAST YEAR, AUGUST OF 2024.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH PURCHASING PROPERTY, I, YOU KNOW, HAVE DONE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, WHICH IS, I ADMIT THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, UH, WE'RE HERE TODAY AND I'M NOT REPEATING THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, THERE'S SOME HISTORICAL GUIDELINES THAT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED FOR, UH, THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN AND I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FOLLOWING THAT.
I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND TRYING TO, UM, BRING IT BACK TO THE, ITS HISTORICAL.
UM, I GUESS THE GUIDELINES OR SOMETHING.
MY, ONE OF MY ISSUES WAS THAT, UM, WHEN I RECEIVED A CITATION WARNING FROM BRENT, UM, YOU KNOW, I REACHED OUT TO HIM AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, LET'S WORK WITH THIS.
WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? HE SAID, YOU KNOW, GET IN TOUCH WITH BASICALLY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UM, COMMITTEE, WHICH I DID.
AND I GOT IN TOUCH WITH BRENDA, UM, PEREZ, WHO WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.
AND THEN I STARTED WORKING WITH HER, PROVIDED HER WITH THE INFORMATION WITH THE PHOTOS THAT SHE WANTED.
SO SHE WENT BACK AND, YOU KNOW, SHE SAID, I NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME THINGS, WHICH SHE DID.
AND THEN, UM, I DIDN'T HEAR FROM HER.
I SENT HER ANOTHER FOLLOW UP EMAIL AND THEN SHE'S LIKE, OKAY, I NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME STUFF, I'LL GET BACK TO YOU.
AND THEN WITHIN THAT SAME EMAIL SHE DID SAY, OH, CAN YOU SEND ME SOME PICTURES TOO? BUT THEN, UM, I GUESS SOME TIME HAD LAPSED, I DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM HER.
AND THEN I GOT A CITATION, UM, FINE FROM BRENT ON MY DOOR THAT SAID THAT I HAVE A VIOLATION OR CITATION NOW.
AND THEN WHEN I CALLED HIM I SAID, YOU KNOW, WHY AM I GETTING A CITATION? BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITH BRENDA DIRECTLY ON TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE AND SEE WHAT MY NEXT STEPS ARE.
BUT I NEVER GOT AN ANSWER BACK FROM HER.
AND, UM, I GUESS BEFORE HE GAVE ME THE CITATION, HE HAD CONTACTED HER AND SHE SAID THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT A COA, BUT I WAS NEVER ASKED TO SUBMIT A-C-O-A-I DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION.
I DIDN'T GET ANY VOICEMAIL, I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING FROM HER.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH BRENDA AND UM, I'M CONTINUING TO WORK WITH YOUR UNTIL NOW.
'CAUSE I'VE SUBMITTED AFTER THE FACT I'VE SUBMITTED A COA AND WE'RE WORKING ON A COVENANT.
BUT I GUESS MY ISSUE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I SHOULDN'T HAVE, I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED A CITATION BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND WITH BRENT FOR THEIR ENTIRE TIME TRYING TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MOMENT? GO AHEAD, MS. SUPERINTENDENT.
UM, I'M CURIOUS, IS THERE ANY SORT OF LIKE REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, CITY STAFF OR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UM, PERSON, IS THERE A TIMELINE THAT THEY NEED TO RESPOND TO TO HOMEOWNER REQUESTS? SO TYPICALLY WITH, UM, ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS OR FILINGS, WE SHOULD BE GIVING RESPONSES WITHIN 30 DAYS, IF NOT SOONER, TYPICALLY SOONER.
I THINK IN THIS CASE, UM, THERE IS EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH.
I DO THINK THAT THE, UH, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WASN'T ACTUALLY FILED UNTIL RECENTLY, BUT THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE FIRST PRESERVATION STAFF THROUGH EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE THROUGHOUT THE TIMELINE.
BUT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT FORMALLY FILED UNTIL, UH, I BELIEVE IN, UH, JULY.
I'M SORRY, DO WE HAVE, OKAY, JOE, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YES.
YEAH, MY QUESTION WAS RELATED THAT, 'CAUSE I, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU AND I'M TERRIBLE WITH NAMES SO I APOLOGIZE.
I DON'T REMEMBER IT AT THE MOMENT.
UM, I THOUGHT YOU HAD SAID THERE WAS NO COA FILED IN YOUR EARLIER REMARKS OR PRIOR TO THE WORK BEING DONE.
THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FILED FOR THE WORK THAT'S THERE.
AND TODAY TO TODAY, THERE'S BEEN NO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED FOR THE WORK THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
BUT AS OF JULY, THE APPLICANT HAS FILED TO RECTIFY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS HERE THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN.
AND WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THAT APPLICATION? THE APPLICANT IS
[00:30:01]
WORKING WITH, UH, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF TO WORK ON A PHASED COVENANT.SO THAT WORK WOULD BE DONE, UH, OVER TIME WITH A COMMITMENT THAT WOULD BE REPORTED ON TITLE.
UM, BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED ON THE PROPERTY, IT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AND IT, IT, UM, ENCOURAGES, UM, REQUIRED DILIGENCE ON WORKING ON THIS.
A LOT OF THE ITEMS ON THIS, UH, PHOTO DON'T REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS, BUT THEY DO REQUIRE THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
SO IT'S A COMMITMENT THROUGH THE COVENANT PROCESS, LET'S SAY A TIMELINE OF YOU HAVE TO DO REPLACE THIS BY THIS TIME, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THAT BY THAT TIME.
SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OFTEN DO WHERE WE HAVE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF HISTORIC COMPONENTS ON BUILDINGS IN IN CONTROL.
AND WHEN WAS THE NEW C OF A APPLICATION FILED? IT WAS IN, UH, JULY OF, UH, THIS YEAR, JULY 7TH, 2025.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I JUST DO WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO EXACT, YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY SAID IT, BUT SOMETIMES I'M A BIT HAZY.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT C OF A APPLICATION? THE PLANNER IS WORKING ON FINALIZING IT, I BELIEVE WITH THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME.
THEY HAVE TO RECORD A COVENANT, WHICH REQUIRES A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT IS REVIEWED.
SO I BELIEVE THEY'RE FINALIZING THAT AT THIS MOMENT.
AND IS THERE ANY WAY TO ESTIMATE THE TYPICAL TIMEFRAME FOR COMPLETING THAT PROCESS TO ISSUE THE ACTUAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND REPORT IT ON TITLE? THAT, THAT'S HOW I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE FULLY COMPLETE.
UM, I DON'T HAVE THE ACCURATE TIMELINE RIGHT NOW.
I CAN SAY THOUGH THAT CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS ARE VERY MUCH LIKE PAPERWORK.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE USING OUR ENGINEERING MINDS LIKE OUR COUNTERPARTS AND BUILDING AND SAFETY.
WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE PHOTOS AND HAVE ALL THE MATERIALS OF WHAT WILL BE DELIVERED.
SO I AM, I AM HOPING BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, THAT IT'S NEAR COMPLETENESS ON THAT AND THAT THE FINAL DOCUMENTS ARE BEING, UM, PREPARED FOR RECORDING ON THE TITLE.
THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE A BETTER ESTIMATE ON THEIR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STAFF THAN I DO AT THIS TIME, BUT I DON'T FORESEE IT GOING FURTHER THAN MAYBE SEPTEMBER, EARLY SEPTEMBER.
UM, SO A WEEK OR TWO, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE ANY LONGER THAN THAT TO FINAL.
SO LEMME SEE IF I CAN TRY TO RECAP THE FACTS HERE AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.
SO THE CITATION WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 25TH, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT CORRECT.
AND THE PROPERTY OWNER FILED FOR C OF A WITHIN LESS THAN 30 DAYS, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY FILED ON JULY 7TH, 2025, WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN LESS, LESS THAN 30 DAYS OF THAT DATE.
AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR VIOLATION CORRECTION WAS NO LATER THAN JULY 25TH.
THAT'S GOING FOR THE SECOND, THAT'S WHAT I SEE IN EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE.
IN ORDER TO, IN ORDER TO AVOID AN A SECOND CITATION, UM, THAT MEANS THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BY JULY 25TH, 2025.
AND SO I THINK THE QUESTION IN A SENSE FOR THIS COMMISSION IS WHETHER OR NOT FILING FOR THE C OF A WITHIN 30 DAYS, CONS, OBVIOUSLY IT CONSTITUTES A STEP TOWARD COMPLIANCE.
QUESTION FOR US IS WHETHER OR NOT EITHER THAT CONSTITUTES COMPLIANCE.
I WOULD GUESS THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DEFER THIS ACTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE OWNER FILED WITHIN A 30 DAY PERIOD.
THE LAST QUESTION IS PROBABLY ONE FOR US TO DELIBERATE, BUT THE PRIOR QUESTIONS I'M INTERESTED IN STAFF VIEW.
SO I THINK THAT THE, I THINK THE PHRASE THERE THAT SAYS VIOLATION CORRECTION MUST BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN JULY 25TH, 2025, RELATES TO THE INCURRENCE OF ADDITIONAL PENALTIES OR FINES NOT RELATING TO THE PENALTY OR FINE THAT'S BEEN ASSESSED AS OF THAT DAY, AH, THAT'S IMPOSED.
AND THEN IF IT'S NOT REMEDIED WITHIN 30 DAYS, ADDITIONAL
[00:35:01]
CITATIONS OR FURTHER ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE CITY.SO, UH, JEFF TO THAT, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASE OVERALL, WE HAVEN'T CITED ADDITIONALLY AFTER THAT, AFTER WE VERIFIED THAT SHE STARTED COMMUNICATING AND SHE FILED, WE HAVEN'T ISSUED ANY ADDITIONAL CITATIONS.
JUST THE ONE, THE ONE CITATION THAT'S ISSUED THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, AND I'M SURE IT'S HERE.
WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL CITATION ISSUED? JUNE 25TH.
OF THIS YEAR? YES, MR. KIN, I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE MISSING IS THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CITATION WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER, BUT THEY HAD TO START OVER WHEN THERE'S A NEW OWNER AND HENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DATES.
AND SHE ALSO RECEIVED A, WHAT WE CALL A CITATION WARNING NOTICE ON FEBRUARY 24TH OF THIS YEAR, IS LETTING YOU KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED SO THAT SHE DID GET PROPER NOTIFICATION.
BUT UM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE VERIFY THAT THE WHAT CONSTITUTES COMPLIANCE MEANS THAT SHE WOULD BE, WE, WE WOULDN'T GET HER ADDITIONAL CITATION.
IF SHE STARTED COMPLYING, THEN WE STOPPED FURTHER CITATIONS.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN IS THAT THIS IS ABOUT A VIOLATION OF THE PRIOR CITATION, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN 2024 AND ON WHICH HE DULY NOTIFIED THE OWNER? NO, NO.
LIKE, LIKE MADAM CHAIRPERSON JOHN MENTIONED, UH, IS FOR THIS CITATION THAT WAS ISSUED THIS YEAR BECAUSE THAT'S FOR HER CASE UNDER THE NEW OWNER.
SO WE HAD TO GIVE HER DUE PROCESS TO LET HER KNOW THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION ON HER PROPERTY AND THAT SHE, WE WERE GONNA GIVE HER TIME TO CORRECT IT AND THEN SHE DIDN'T CORRECT IT.
SO THAT'S WHY SHE RECEIVED THE CITATION AFTER SHE STARTED COMPLYING WITH THE PROCESS OF COMMUNICATING WITH PLANNING AND SUBMITTING A COA APPLICATION, WE STOP CITING ADDITIONALLY.
SO THERE'S NO MORE ADDITIONAL SITES, BUT IF SAY SHE DIDN'T COMPLY OR DIDN'T SUBMIT ANYTHING, THEN SHE WOULD PROBABLY MOST LIKELY HAVE ADDITIONAL CITATIONS AS WELL.
AND MR. KIN, I'M GONNA ASK IF YOU COULD HOLD UP FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS.
MS. HOOP AND I'LL GO AFTER YOU.
DID THE WARNING NOTICE, UH, EXPLICITLY SAY YOU NEED TO FILE A COA? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING ON THIS SIDE, THAT COMMUNICATION WAS STARTED RIGHT AFTER THE WARNING.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING OVER HERE IS THAT COMMUNICATION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL THE COA WAS FILED.
AND SO WHAT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS WHEN WAS SHE TOLD THAT SHE NEEDED TO FILE FILE THE COA? UM, WELL I BELIEVE IT STATES IN THE CODE THAT, UM, I BELIEVE IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT QUOTES LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION, UH, 2.6 3.120.
IT RECITES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
IT DOESN'T GIVE NECESSARILY PROCEDURAL INFORMATION, BUT JUST THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
AND FOR I BELIEVE THE WITNESS IS REFERRING TO EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH IS THE WARNING OF AS SENT.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND I THINK IT IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MY QUESTION IS THE HEARING AND AND FOR THE HOMEOWNER AS WELL CHECK THE CITED VIOLATION DID NOT EXIST ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED, BUT THAT'S NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT.
AM I RIGHT ON THAT? THAT THE CITATION, UM, THE VIOLATION DID EXIST ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED? WELL, THE COMMISSION GETS TO ADJUDICATE THE FACTS THAT THE CITY WILL ACCEPT.
SO THAT IS A FACTUAL, OH, WE CAN DECIDE THAT.
BUT WHAT WE TO DECIDE TRUTH IN REALITY THEN LET ME THEN, LET ME TRY THIS.
WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ADJUDICATE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITED VIOLATION EXISTED ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED AND ALL THE REST THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ISN'T REALLY IN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT? YES, PLEASE.
UM, WHEN I GOT THE CITATION AND THEN I WANTED TO APPEAL IT BECAUSE I WAS NOT INFORMED TO SUBMIT A-C-O-A-I WHEN I FILLED OUT THE FORM, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO CHECK 'CAUSE THERE WAS ONLY TWO CHECK BOXES.
SO I ACTUALLY CAME TO THE CITY THAT DAY AND TALKED TO BUILDING AND THEN I TALKED TO MARIANNE AS WELL TOO AND SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE CASE AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT I NEED TO DO BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND THE CITATIONS ARE THERE, BUT MY ISSUE WAS
[00:40:01]
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM SINCE THE BEGINNING TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM.SO WHY ARE THEY CITING ME WHEN I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH 'EM? SO I WENT AHEAD AND I DID PAY, WE, WE CHECKED WHATEVER CHECK BOXES THAT WERE AVAILABLE, WHICH IS ONLY TWO.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE FOR THE APPEALS TO KIND OF SAY, I UNDERSTAND THE VIOLATIONS ARE THERE, BUT I SHOULDN'T HAVE RECEIVED A CITATION.
'CAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY THE ENTIRE TIME TO RECTIFY THIS ISSUE.
AND I WAS NOT TOLD TO FILE A COA PRIOR TO THAT CITATION, MS. JACKSON.
SO WHAT I DO SEE HERE IN EXHIBIT TWO IS, UM, THE CITATION WARNING NOTICE ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 25TH IS THE STATEMENT THAT CORRECTIONS MUST BE COMPLETED BY MARCH 31ST.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S MATERIAL TO OUR DECISION OR NOT, BUT IT DOES PUT IN A EARLIER DATE ON THIS.
SEE, I DON'T, IT'S NOT MATERIAL TO YOUR DECISION IN THE SENSE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE VIOLATIONS, WHETHER THE PROPERTY CON HAD VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED.
AS THE CITATION ED, WE INCLUDE OTHER INFORMATION 'CAUSE IT'S FAIR FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IN THE ENTIRE TEAM'S OPINION DUE PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THAT THE UH, OWNER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND AND ASSESS THE SITUATION ON THE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
UM, SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM READING THE CITATION, WHAT'S AT ISSUE IF, IF WE DECIDE, YES, THE CITATION DIDN'T EXIST, AND WE ALSO HAVE TO DECIDE THAT MS. LYNN IS IN FACT THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH I'M ASSUMING YOU DON'T DISPUTE, UM, THEN SHE NEEDS TO PAY A HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE.
IS THAT OKAY? UM, I, I HAVE TO SAY, GIVEN THE FACTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE GOOD NOTICE THAT WHAT SHE NEEDED TO DO WAS TO FILE FOR A COA UNTIL SHE GOT THE ACTUAL NOTICE VIOLATION.
AND, UM, NOT SURE WHAT TO DO WITH THAT OTHER THAN MAYBE STAFF SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE CAREFUL NEXT TIME.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A GOOD SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO ME TO BE, TO BE IN, UM, I'M GOING TO GUESS THE A HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE IS NOWHERE NEAR THE COST OF MAKING THE CORRECTIONS.
UM, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY IS, IS WORKING WITH MS. WYNN TO, UH, COME UP WITH SOMETHING SHE CAN LIVE WITH.
BUT, UM, I GUESS THAT WAS MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND MY QUESTION IS, IF WE FIND THAT THE VIOLATION EXISTED ON THE, IF WE DENY THE APPEAL, WILL THERE BE A HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE? YES.
JUDGE, AND SHE PAID IT ALREADY TO COME HERE TO APPEAL.
UM, SO YES, JUST SAY YOU'RE JUST GONNA PRETTY MUCH REINSTATE THAT THE VIOLATIONS DID EXIST ON THE DATE THAT CITATION WAS ISSUED.
AND IF YOU GRANT THE APPEAL, 'CAUSE SHE'S ALREADY PAID, THE CITY WOULD REISSUE HER.
SO IF WE GRANT THE APPEAL, SHE GETS A HUNDRED DOLLARS BACK.
IF WE DENY THE APPEAL, YOUR A HUNDRED DOLLARS IS GONE.
SO WHEN WE'RE, SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE VIOLATIONS EXISTED ON THE DATE THE CITATION WAS ISSUED.
DO WE HAVE ANY WAY OF SAYING, HEY CITY, YOU GUYS NEED TO BE A LITTLE CLEARER SO THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE.
AND AND NORMALLY THROUGH THE CASE PROCESS THE INSPECTOR WILL NOTIFY THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER OF THE VIOLATIONS, TYPICALLY TRIES TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE TO THE CORRECT PARTIES INVOLVED, LIKE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE PLANNING.
UM, BUT MARIANNE MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE STAFF DID HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER AND DID EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO.
SO I, I DON'T, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THAT EMAIL, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY PROVIDED INSTRUCTIONS AS THEY USUALLY WOULD DO.
UH, SO SHE WOULD'VE GOTTEN NOTICE IN WRITING, BUT, UH, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH MARIAM MIGHT KNOW.
BUT NORMALLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NORMAL FOR US.
SO WE DON'T JUST RANDOMLY SEND A NOTICE AND NOT EXPLAIN TO THE OWNERS WHEN THEY ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO SPEAK ON THE PLANNING SIDE.
SO MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY MARIANNE, I WILL SAY THAT THERE WAS BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATIONS, UM, THE ACTUAL
[00:45:01]
TRANSMITTAL OF THE LINK FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS LATER IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS.BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALL OF THOSE FORMS ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE.
UH, BUT THERE WAS A BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE PLANNER AND IT IS NOTED BASED ON THE CONVERSATION TODAY, ON DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT EXPLAINING PROCESS, MR. ASPEN.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT THAT NOTIFICATION WAS LATER TO KNOW WHEN THAT NOTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED? I BELIEVE IT WAS IN, UH, I WILL HAVE TO SAY THE PREVIOUS, THE EARLY CONVERSATIONS IN MARCH DID TALK ABOUT THE PLANNER.
OH, MOVING AN OVERVIEW OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS, WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTUAL LINK TO THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN THAT INITIAL CONVERSATION.
I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, BUT I BELIEVE THE LINK WAS CLOSER TO THE SUBMITTAL DATE.
THAT WAS, UH, JULY THE FIRST WHEN SHE SENT ME THE LINK.
AND THEN WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION.
I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO HER ON THE PHONE.
SHE SAYS, I, LET ME GO AHEAD AND SEND YOU THE LINK.
THAT'S WHEN SHE ACTUALLY SENT ME THE LINK BECAUSE I DID, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A CERTIFICATE OF, OF, OF THE COA APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS PART OF LIKE THE CITATION WARNING OR CITATION.
BUT THEN I SAID, WELL, IT'S A GENERAL, WHAT DO I INCLUDE IN THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS? SO IT'S LIKE, WHAT ARE THE DETAILS? BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITATION, IT SAYS INCLUDING, IT'S VERY BROAD, VERY GENERAL.
I'M LIKE, WHAT IS IT THAT I HAVE TO FIX BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT TO INCLUDE AND WHAT I NEED TO FIX.
BUT I WAS NEVER GIVEN THAT ANSWER PRIOR TO JULY THE FIRST.
I HAVE, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, WHICH IS, WAS YOUR MOST OF YOUR CONTACT WITH BRENDA IN THE HISTORIC CORRECT.
SO, AND YOU, MS. UM, CARTER, YOU WEREN'T REALLY INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN BRENDA AND THE HOMEOWNER? NO, I WAS NOT.
AND MS. HOOP, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I, I GUESS THE, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE WORD LINK IN THE ATTACHMENT ONE, ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION INFORMATION SHEET ACTUALLY CLICKED ON THE LINK THERE, UH, FOR THE REQUEST FOR HEARING.
IT THE, WHEN, WHEN YOU CLICK ON IT, YOU GET WE'RE SORRY, THE PAGE YOU'RE TRYING TO REACH CANNOT BE FOUND.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH EXHIBIT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AGAIN? UM, LET ME, UM, I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE A SLIGHT PROBLEM HERE AND YOU DO SOMETHING MR. WALSH, THAT WE ALL LOVE TO DO, BUT OUR, OUR, WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY PRESENT TO US GOING ONLINE TO SEE HOW IT WORKS.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I, I WAS JUST HOPING THAT THE WORD WOULD GET THERE.
UM, LET'S SEE, WHICH EXHIBIT WOULD THAT BE IN? I, 'CAUSE I JUST DOWNLOADED THE WHOLE PACKET, WHICH SHOWS UP AS ONE.
ANYWAY, THE, THE FORM IS CALLED ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION INFORMATION SHEET.
UM, AND I CAN'T TELL FROM THIS WHAT IS, AND AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION, BUT I THINK I'M GONNA CAUTION YOU TO KIND OF CLOSE YOUR LAPTOP FOR THIS PART.
THAT'S NOT KIND OF HOW WE WORK HERE.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, VIOLATIONS THAT HAPPENED FROM PREVIOUS OWNERS.
IS THERE A PROCESS FOR LIKE NOTIFYING THE HOME BUYER OR LIKE, LIKE WHAT? LIKE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS THE PERSON WHO VIOLATED THE LAW? ALRIGHT, YOU WANT ME TO TAKE THAT OR INVOLVED? YES.
SO THAT TRANSACTION IS PRIVATE AND CIVIL.
SO THE CITY OF NORWAY INVOLVED, UH, DURING THE, UH, PURCHASE PROCESS, UH, BOTH PARTIES, A SELLING PARTY AND THE BUYING PARTY HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.
LIKE, UH, THE, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER MENTIONED EARLIER THAT SHE PROBABLY DIDN'T DO THAT DUE DILIGENCE.
HOWEVER, UH, THEY DO HAVE PRIVATE HOME INSPECTORS THAT SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT OR THE REAL ESTATE AGENT SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT SOMEBODY, IF THEY LOOK AT THE RECORD, SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT.
UH, SO WHAT HAPPENS DURING THAT PROCESS IS COMPLETELY PRIVATE.
NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY, UH, AS THE NEW OWNER, SHE ASSUMES THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
NOW, IF THERE WAS A CASE THAT SHE WOULD BOUGHT, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THE OLD OWNER DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY CURRENT VIOLATIONS OR OPEN CASES, IT'S A STILL A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN BOTH OWNERS.
SO SHE DOES HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, A CIVIL CODE ON, ON THE CALIFORNIA THAT SHE HAS, I BELIEVE TWO, THREE YEARS TO
[00:50:01]
LITIGATE THAT BETWEEN THE, BETWEEN HER AND THE OLD OWNER TO GET THAT FIXED IF THAT WASN'T DISCLOSED DURING THE PROCESS.BUT SOMETIMES THEY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AS IS.
AND AGAIN, IT'S STILL A CIVIL MATTER AND OUR DUE PROCESS TO GIVE TO THE NEW OWNER WE LIKE, UH, BRENT ME MENTIONED, WE OPENED UP A NEW CASE, SENT HER THE WARNING SAYING, HEY, IS THERE SOMETHING GOING ON AT YOUR PROPERTY? PLEASE ADDRESS IT.
SO WE STILL GIVE HER THAT DUE PROCESS JUST TO GIVE HER HER A CHANCE TO MAKE SURE MAYBE THEY WEREN'T AWARE OR MAYBE THEY ARE JUST TO GET 'EM GOING ON, GETTING THAT LEGALIZED OR COMMITTED.
UH, SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE PROCESS DURING A TRANSACTION.
SO UNFORTUNATELY THE LAW SAYS THAT SHE'S THE OWNER, SO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THERE SHE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR.
SO SHE'S STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, FOR SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING BECAUSE SHE'S ALLOWING IT TO EXIST.
SO MAKING HER STILL FURTHER, UH, RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
YEAH, I JUST WOULD RECAP WHAT I SEE HERE TO, AGAIN, WITH INTEREST TO STAFF, CORRECT ME, I'M MISSING SOMETHING.
SO WE ARE, EXCUSE ME FOR BEING A LITTLE BIT HEAVY.
THIS IS COMPLICATED, PRECISE STUFF.
SO WE ARE ACTING ON THE CITATION ISSUED ON JUNE 25TH.
UM, WHAT THE OWNER IS TELLING US IS THAT UPON RECEIPT THAT SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY, BUT IN A WAY THAT SHE DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE.
AND THAT UPON RECEIVING THIS CITATION ON JUNE 25TH, SHE REACHED OUT AGAIN.
AND ON JULY 1ST FOR THE FIRST TIME SHE RECEIVED THE FORM WHICH SHOWED EXACTLY HOW TO APPLY FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, CORRECT ME ON ANYTHING THERE.
I REALIZE THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER FACTS, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M RIGHT OR WRONG IN UNDERSTANDING THAT FACT MATTER.
THAT SOUNDS ACCURATE TO MY INFORMATION.
ANYTHING ELSE? ALRIGHT, SO IT SEEMS TO ME WE NEED A MOTION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE APPEAL REGARDING THE CITED VIOLATION DID NOT EXIST ON THE DATE THAT THE CITATION WAS ISSUED OR DENY APPEAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPEAL? MS. SUPER.
IS THERE A SECOND TO APPROVE THE APPEAL MEANS TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER? THAT'S CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU CALL FOR THE VOTE? OKAY.
BOARD MEMBER ENRIQUES, I'M SORRY.
FIRST DAY THE NEW GUY GOES TO GET, YEAH, I, I WILL HAVE TO SAY I'M TORN.
THE, THE ANALYTICAL ENGINEER IN ME SAYS THAT THE CITATION DID EXIST.
THE PERSON IN ME THAT THINKS WE OUGHT TO BE FAIR TO PEOPLE SAYS WE SHOULD UPHOLD THE APPEAL.
NOT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE,
SO IN A TIE, THE APPEAL DOES NOT PASS.
OKAY, WELL I WANNA THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS JUST FOR ME, IT'S NOT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, OF COURSE, THAT THAT'S A FACTOR OF IT.
I MEAN, I'M GONNA BE SPENDING OVER LIKE 40, $50,000 FIXING ALL THIS.
BUT I THINK IT'S MORE A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE TRIED TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND FOR ME, PROCESS DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING MORE OF A PROCESS, STRINGENT PROCESS IN PLACE TO KIND OF CHECK OFF THE THINGS THAT SAYS, OKAY, I'VE TRIED TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT WRONG.
MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THINGS GOT DELAYED.
[00:55:01]
I THINK I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GONNA BE ISSUES OR INCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS WHERE THIS IS GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN.AND FOR US TO APPEAL THIS, THERE'S ONLY TWO THINGS YOU CAN CHOOSE FROM.
DID IT EXIST? AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER THING WAS, BUT I THINK YOU'RE NOT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.
I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK IS, IS IT YOUR DEPARTMENT THAT HAS THE REQUEST FOR HEARING ON AN APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION? BECAUSE I, I AM TORN AS WELL.
IT'S WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF GOOD CHOICES IN TERMS OF THAT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THOSE, WHEN YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE LAW, TRYING TO FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL, BUT THEN THE PROTOCOL IS BROKEN SMART, THE CHECK BOXES IS A REFLECTION OF THE AUTHORITY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO GRANT THE APPEAL.
SO I AM VERY EMPATHETIC WITH ALL OF THE PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT EVERYBODY MADE.
BUT IT'S EVEN TRUE THAT PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS DOES NOT EXEMPT YOU FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THE CITY DOES NOT ISSUE THE VIOLATIONS.
ITS COMPLIANCE COMES BEFORE THE VIOLATION IS ISSUED.
ONCE THE VIOLATION IS ISSUED BY POLICY, THE CITY TENDS TO PURSUE THOSE VIOLATIONS TO THE END.
BUT, BUT PARTICIPATION IS NOT A BASIS TO HAVE A VIOLATION OF RESCINDED.
ON THE OTHER HAND THOUGH, AS A, THERE'S DISCRETION ABOUT WHETHER TO ISSUE THAT VIOLATION.
NOTICE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS DISCRETION AND, AND AS THEY SAID, AND I'LL REITERATE THE POLICY IS TO NOT ISSUE THE VIOLATION IF THEY SEE WHAT THEY DETERMINE TO BE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE VIOLATION.
ONCE THE VIOLATION IS ISSUED, IF COMPLIANCE CALLS FROM THAT POLICY WOULD BE TO PURSUE THE VIOLATION, STILL TO DEFEND AND APPEAL AGAINST THE VIOLATION, BUT NOT TO ISSUE ANY FURTHER VIOLATIONS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION IS SEEING TRANSPIRING.
AND I WANT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT, WHICH IS, I WANT TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DONE SOMETHING COST YOU A HUNDRED DOLLARS, VERY SMALL COMPARED WITH WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SPEND ULTIMATELY ALL OF THIS OR WHAT YOU SPENT ON THE PROPERTY.
BUT YOU'VE ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A CONVERSATION HERE, WHICH IS RECOGNIZING, I THINK ON THE PART OF CITY STAFF AND ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION, THE NEED TO COMMUNICATE MORE CLEARLY AND MORE PROACTIVELY.
AND SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE.
AND I COULD HAVE VOTED EITHER WAY ON THIS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VOTING PROCESS IS LIKE, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, DOES THAT EXIST OR NOT? AND IT DID.
I'M NOT DENYING THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE PROCESS IS BROKEN AND I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT WHAT PROTOCOLS THAT ARE IN PLACE TO ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE LIKE US CITIZENS WORK WITH THE CITY.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY ELECTED TO BECAUSE OF THIS.
AND FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY WHERE THERE'S ALL THAT COMMUNICATION GOING ON THAT YOU'RE NOT REALLY AWARE OF.
AND THE SAME THING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT HERE.
I I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY, BUT YEAH.
ALMOST APOLOGIES, BUT NO, THANK YOU.
I HAVE ONE MORE NOTE ON THE, LIKE HISTORIC, LIKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HISTORIC DISTRICT, LIKE WHAT, WHAT IS APPROVED? LIKE LOOKING AT THE BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES, LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEBODY JUST WALKED BY AND WAS LIKE, THEY PULLED OUT THE GARDEN.
I'M REPORTING THIS AND LIKE, HONESTLY THIS PATHWAY LOOKS A LOT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO SOMEONE USING A WALKER.
LIKE WE CAN'T JUST RANDOMLY BE SAYING SOMEONE PULLED OUT A GARDEN, I'M REPORTING THIS.
THAT'S LIKE NOT, UM, WHAT THAT'S FOR.
AND UM, I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE DOING THAT, RIGHT? BUT LIKE, I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO CRACK DOWN A LITTLE BIT ON, ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACROSS THE BOARD.
IT'S ONLY WHEN SOMEBODY FILES A COMPLAINT THAT THE CITY COMES AFTER YOU.
I MEAN, I, HANG ON, JUST THANK YOU.
I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT IF I COULD, WHICH IS GOING THE DOORS, UH, THE WALKWAY IN THE BEFORE PICTURES DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS REMOTELY THE WAY IT WAS 70 YEARS AGO OR WHENEVER THAT PLACE WAS BUILT EITHER.
SO I, I SUSPECT WHAT'S THERE NOW ACTUALLY IS CLOSER TO WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN BUILT, BUT NOT, NOT A SUBJECT FOR THIS HEARING.
[01:00:01]
COMMENTS FOR ANYONE? THEN LET US MOVE ON WITH THE AGENDA.I WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH THE ATTORNEY, UM, SINCE THIS MOTION FAILED, SHOULD WE THEN HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION HAVE A VOTE SO THAT WE DO HAVE A MOTION THAT CARRIES FOR THIS ITEM? I THOUGHT WE FAILED TOO.
THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO HEAR THE ITEM.
IT'S TO CONCLUDE AND TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING DETERMINE THAT THE CITED PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE AND THAT THE VIOLATIONS LISTED EXIST ON THE I'M, I'M SATISFIED THAT THE WAY THE MOTION WAS READ ENCAPSULATES EITHER POSSIBILITY AND THAT WE HAVE NO MOTION FORWARD, WHICH MEANS THAT THE APPEAL FAILS.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO PUT IT MORE CLEARLY INTO THE RECORD GIVEN THE WAY THE AGENDA ITEM IS PHRASED.
WE CAN PROBABLY WORK ON IN THE FUTURE SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT, FRANKLY.
YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHERE I ACTUALLY, WHEN WE DID THE MOTION, I ASKED FOR A MOTION TO HEAR THE ITEM NOT TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.
AND THAT'S WHY I BUT THAT ITEM, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM TO GO.
THANK YOU EVERYONE WHO WAS INVOLVED WITH THIS ONE.
AND WE HAVE, UM, A THIRD AGENDA ITEM, MADAM CLERK, WHICH WOULD BE READ THE THIRD AGENDA, UH, WILL DO I BELIEVE.
UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE IS THE TRIANNUAL CODE ADOPTION PRESENTATION.
UM, IT'S STAFF REPORT ACTUALLY.
SO WE DON'T, DO WE NEED A MOTION TO HEAR THE STAFF REPORT? SO IT'S A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE PRESENTATION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE PRESENTATION ON THE TRIENNIAL CODE ADOPTION PRESENTATION? SHOULDN'T THAT COME AFTER WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION, I'LL LET THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR YOU.
THE MOTION IS JUST TO TAKE THE AGENDA ITEM AND IT'S A ROBERT RULES QUIRK WHERE WE TAKE THE, WE TAKE THE, WE MAKE THE MOTION IN THE SECOND TO GET IT IN BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE ITEM ITSELF.
WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION FROM STAFF, BUT WE NEED A FIRST AND A SECOND TO BRING IT OFF THE AGENDA.
I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE PROBLEM BEFORE WITH THE DIFFERENT MOTIONS, BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE IS JUST, LET'S HEAR THIS THING AND THEN WE NEED A MOTION TO ACTUALLY APPROVE OR DISAPP APPROVE AND JUST, IT AIMS TO DO IT ALL AT ONCE, RIGHT? WE TAKE THE FIRST AND THE SECOND AND THEN WE DO COMMENT AND HEAR IT.
AND THEN IF, UH, THERE'S AN AMENDMENT OR A FRIENDLY OR A NOT FRIENDLY, WE VOTE 'EM AN ORDER, CROSS ORDER THAT CAME IN.
WE RESOLVE WITH THE MOTION THAT IT IS ON THE AGENDA UNLESS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION HAS PREVAILED.
MAYBE WE CAN TALK MORE AFTER THIS.
THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M USED TO IN OTHER PUBLIC BINS WAY.
ALRIGHT, MADAM CLERK, CAN, YOU GOT SO MOVED.
I'M MAKING A MOTION TO, TO GIVE IDA.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. ASPENS.
I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO STAFF FOR YOUR REPORT.
UM, I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL REPORT.
YOU'VE SAT THROUGH MANY OF MINE, BUT I'LL, I'LL GIVE A, A REALLY, UH, SUPER QUICK AND DIRTY, UH, PROCESS.
SO, UH, MR. HOWER, AS YOU'RE AWARE IN YOUR PROFESSION, THE, UM, THE STATE ADOPTS BILLING CODES, IT MAY REVISE THEM EVERY THREE YEARS.
IT GETS READOPTED AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.
THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE TO, UM, HAVE TO ADOPT THOSE CODES TO ADHERE TO LOCALLY.
WE ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THOSE CODES.
UM, AND SO WE USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MAKE REVISIONS THIS TIME AROUND.
MOST OF OUR REVISIONS, UM, ARE MOSTLY ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, CHANGES TO REFERENCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS, UM, THAT WE DID PULL OUT, OR ACTUALLY A SEPARATE BILL OR SEPARATE ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY WENT COUNCIL LAST TUESDAY.
AND WE'LL BE THERE FOR A SECOND READING TOMORROW.
UM, THAT RELATES TO THE, UH, SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURE, UH, REQUIREMENT.
THE, UM, THERE'S ONE RELATED TO, UM, FLOOD, FLOOD, UH, REQUIREMENTS AND THE ONE RELATED TO METHANE, UH, FOR UNDERGROUND, UM, ELECTRICAL WORK.
SO I, I MENTIONED THOSE BECAUSE THOSE ARE NO LONGER INCLUDED IN THE SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS FROM FROM ONE, UH, THOSE MEMBERS THAT SAW MY PRESENTATIONS, UM, HAVE, BUT UH, THE OTHER THING I DO WANNA MENTION IS ON THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S UNDER THE DISCUSSION SECTION, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPOS.
UM, THERE'S A REFERENCE ON THE SECOND PAGE THAT MENTIONS EXHIBITS A THROUGH F.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY ONLY THREE EXHIBITS, A THROUGH C, UM,
[01:05:01]
AND THEN THE DATE OF THE SECOND MEETING WAS CITED AS MAY 19TH, 2022.UM, SO AT THIS POINT YOU, YOU'VE HEARD ALL MY PRESENTATIONS AS YOU KNOW, WENT THROUGH THE MAJORITY OF WHICH, UM, WHAT I PRESENTED IS JUST ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES, UM, EDITORIAL CHANGES.
THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT, UM, AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE.
SO AT THIS POINT I'VE DONE ALL MY TALKING, SO I, I'LL PUSH IT BACK TO YOU AND, UH, HOPEFULLY WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOGNITION TO SUPPORT, SUPPORT THE, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO THE, THE, I ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE SWIMMING POOL ISSUE A LITTLE BIT.
UM, SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT, SO YOU'RE ASKING US FOR A RECOMMENDATION THEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE OVERALL PROCESS AGAIN? SORRY.
YEAH, SO, SO THE, THE SWIMMING POOL ISSUE, NOT WITH, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THIS, BUT THE IN GENERAL, UM, WE USE THIS BOARD AS A MEANS FOR A PUBLIC VENUE TO, YOU KNOW, WE DO, UM, SEND NOTICE OUT TO VARIOUS, UH, PUBLIC GROUPS, TO VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS, ET CETERA, SO THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.
WE CAN MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT IF NECESSARY, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT A, A, UM, STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, BUT IT'S A, A WAY TO, UM, TO ACHIEVE THE CITY'S DESIRE FOR A TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
SO THE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS, UM, YES, WELL WE WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE ITEMS IN HERE.
UH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS THIS, YOU'VE HEARD IT, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU AGREE WITH THEM, BUT THAT THE, THE HEARING HAS HAPPENED THAT YOU BASICALLY RECOMMEND THAT FORWARD THE PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE.
SO, UM, AND, AND EACH OF THE PRESENTATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN, THERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR THOSE MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
BUT, BUT, AND HONESTLY, I'M PROBABLY GONNA ABSTAIN FROM THIS PARTICULAR VOTE, BUT, UM, 'CAUSE I WAS NOT AT ALL THOSE OTHER PRESENTATIONS, BUT IF, IF I WAS SAYING, NO, THIS NEW PART OF THE CODE I THINK IS WRONG, IT'S DANGEROUS, UM, I WOULD VOTE NO EVEN IF I THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS OKAY.
RIGHT? AND NO, AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE, I'D SAY, UM, IN THIS CASE.
SO THERE'S TWO THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND.
IF WE WERE, IF WE WERE BRINGING FORWARD AN AMENDMENT THAT THE AMENDMENT ITSELF YOU THOUGHT WAS DANGEROUS AND, AND THAT THEN YEAH.
I MEAN IF, IF THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT OF THIS PROCESS AND, AND, AND WHAT WE WOULD'VE HOPED FOR IS WHEN THAT WAS PRESENTED, WE GET YOUR FEEDBACK, THEN WE'D HAVE A CHANCE TO KIND OF REGROUP, LOOK BACK AND SAY, COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE WERE, WE STRUCK THAT ITEM.
OR MAYBE THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED AND WE COULD REPRESENT THAT.
SO, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE PROCESS HERE.
UM, UH, BUT YEAH, SO I MEAN, I THINK IN AT THIS POINT THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN ANY OBJECTION TO WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
UM, YOU COULD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT, UM, AND SO LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT IS MORE FOR US TO SAY CITY COUNCIL.
WE'VE, WE'VE PRESENTED THIS IN A PUBLIC FORUM.
THEY, THEY'VE BASICALLY GIVEN US THAT, THAT CHECK OFF AND SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD AND, AND THAT'S FINE.
THE REALITY IS, AS I SAID, IT'S NOT A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.
IF YOU WERE TO VOTE NO AND THIS DIDN'T PASS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD WANNA KNOW WHY.
AND MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT THAT MOVING FORWARD, BUT THIS ITEM WOULD STILL GO TO COUNCIL.
SO WHY DID THE SWIMMING POOL AND OTHER ITEMS GET PULLED OUT SEPARATELY UNTIL, INSTEAD OF JUST DO IT ALL TOGETHER? SO THERE WAS LAST QUESTION, I PROMISE.
SO WE HAVE, UM, THERE WAS AN ASSEMBLY BILL THAT WAS PASSED, UM, UH, ASSEMBLY POOL ONE 30, UM, WHICH BASICALLY LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF ALTERATIONS THAT THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS COULD MAKE TO CODES RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, THERE, THERE WAS A, UM, SOME LANGUAGE IN THAT THAT SAID IF IT WAS, IF THE, UM, THE AMENDMENT OR THE ALTERATION IS IN PLACE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1ST, 2025, THEN IT CAN BASICALLY BE CARRIED FORWARD INTO THE NEW CODE ADOPTION.
SO, UM, THE INTENT WAS THESE WERE THINGS THAT WERE, UM, WE FELT WERE WERE CRITICAL IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE.
UM, AND THAT THEY WERE IMPORTANT THAT WE PULLED THOSE OUT.
SO, SO THOSE, AS I SAID, THOSE WERE PULLED OUT, THOSE WERE TAKEN THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS WITH COUNSEL.
UM, AND THEY, THEY HEARD THAT ON, UH, LAST TUESDAY, THEY
[01:10:01]
VOTED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, UH, FOR A FINAL HEARING.AND SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT, THE, UM, THE REASON YOU HAD TO SEPARATE 'EM IS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IF YOU WERE TRYING TO DO THAT IN NOVEMBER? YEAH, THERE'S, THERE ARE STATUTORY TIMELINES.
SO WE NEED TO, TO MEET THOSE TIMELINES.
SO, UM, AND YOU, AS PART OF THE REPORT AS IT READS, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT'S LEFT IN HERE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 30.
SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE MAKING ARE EITHER, UH, THINGS THAT ARE BEING CARRIED OVER THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE, OR THAT ARE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE THAT DON'T HAVE, UH, IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ASSEMBLY BUILDING INTENT WAS TO, UM, TO ENCOURAGE POLICIES THAT, UM, WILL ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING.
SO IT WAS TO BASICALLY REMOVE ANY ROADBLOCK.
SO THE, THE, THE EASY WAY FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE TO SAY, OH, WE JUST, WE WON'T ALLOW ANY AMENDMENTS THAT MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE, THAT MAKE IT HARDER TO DEVELOP.
AND THAT'S, THOSE, THOSE THREE ITEMS WERE NOT, UM, THEY REALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT, BUT WE, THEY WERE SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE COULD HAVE GONE TO, UM, THE, UM, CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AFTER THE FACT AND DONE THAT PROCESS AND GOTTEN THEM APPROVED.
UM, BUT IT WOULD'VE, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A LONGER PROCESS AND SOMETHING WE FELT THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE AHEAD OF TIME.
AND, AND THE POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, I BELIEVE TWO OF US NEED TO GET OUT OF HERE AS CLOSE TO THREE AS POSSIBLE.
SO COMMISSIONER ASKIN, GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION.
I, ONE COMMENT AND ONE QUESTION.
THE COMMENT IS THAT IF THERE WERE MATERIAL ISSUES, WHICH WE MIGHT HAVE A VIEW ON, THEY WERE ALL DEALT WITH, AS I UNDERSTAND AT THE STATE LEVEL, LEAVING THE CITY WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE SPACE OUTBREAK, TO YOUR POINT, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, YOU RIGHTLY SAID THAT IF WE VOTED NO, UM, THIS WOULD STILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
AM I RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD'VE ALSO REPORTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THERE WAS SUCH A VOTE FROM THE BEAC? YES.
WE, WE WILL, UM, BE TRANSPARENT WITH COUNCIL, LET THEM KNOW RESULTS OF THIS.
I, I THINK WHAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS THE, THE REASONING BEHIND THAT.
SO THAT WE COULD REPRESENT THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE TRIENNIAL? I JUST LOST AL CODE ADOPTION PRESENTATION AS PRESENTED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE? YES.
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIRST MOTION? NEVERMIND.
YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL TALK LATER.
SO I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF THE MEETING WHERE WE ARE GONNA TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE STILL HAVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MANAGER'S REPORT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DIDN'T WE JUST DO THAT? NO, NO, THAT, NO, THAT WAS A TRIANGLE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND AND RECEIVE AND RECOMMEND THE MANAGER'S REPORT? RECOMMEND AND RECEIVE THE MANAGER'S REPORT.
RECEIVE AND FILE? YEAH, RECEIVE AND FILE THE REPORT.
I RECEIVE AND FILE THE MANAGER'S REPORT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OH, I'M SORRY.
OH, WE CAN'T JUST DO MR. REDONDO.
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR RESPONSE.
THANK YOU FOR A COUPLE MORE MINUTES.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A VERBAL REPORT.
THERE'S NO, UH, FORMAL REPORT TO PRESENT, BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COURTESY UPDATE REGARDING 60 20 60 90 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD.
SO TODAY, JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, UH, SINCE YOU MADE A DETERMINATION PREVIOUSLY, UH, THE OWNERS HAVE NOT CONTACT, UH, CONTACTED US OR MADE ANY, UH, UH, IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES OR ATTEMPTED TO MAKE ANY CORRECTIONS.
SO THE CITY'S STILL MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR DETERMINATION, WHICH WAS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, RE REFURBISHING OR DEMOLISHING.
SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE, MOST LIKELY WE'LL DEMOLISHING IF THIS A NU
JUST WANNA GIVE YOU AN NOTHING UPDATE AS COURTESY.
[01:15:01]
ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION, RIGHT? YES.YEAH, WELL, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON THAT, YEAH, WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, COMMENT? NO.
AND THERE'S NO, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE'S NO PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
UM, SO THE, UH, MEMBER HOOPS? YES.
NOW WE ALSO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT.
IS THAT CORRECT WAY TO SAY IT? YES.
WE'LL NOT TAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AND WOULD'VE LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON AGENDA.
ALRIGHT, MEMBERS, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? ALRIGHT, THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING IS SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
I, I GUESS I DID, I AT LEAST STILL HAVE ON MY CALENDAR A MEETING IN A WEEK NOW.
BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT MIGHT GET CANCELED, I BELIEVE BECAUSE WE APPROVED THE TRIENNIAL REPORT.
THAT WAS IN CASE WE DID NOT HAVE TIME.
AM I CORRECT ON THAT? SO WE WILL NOT BE MEETING NEXT WEEK.
WELL AND THANK YOU FOR THE WARM WELL, SO I APPRECIATE IT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL.
I GO, DO I NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? NO.