[00:00:02]
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING OF ORDER.
MADAM CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE REST MEMBER ENRIQUE HERE.
MEMBER WHO? MEMBER HOWARD HERE.
UM, MEMBER POWERS VICE CHAIR ACTON HERE.
MEMBER WHO AND MEMBER POWERS ARE RECEIVED FROM THE MEETING.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION FROM THE BOARD? STATE NONE.
IT IS TIME TO RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SO ALL THAT CAN PLEASE RISE, RAISE YOUR HAND OVER YOUR HEART AND REPEAT AFTER ME.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
IS THERE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 18TH, EARLY 25? MOVE.
I WILL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY VICE CHAIR ASKINS, SECONDED BY MEMBER ENRIQUE TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MINUTES.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES? JOE, THIS IS YOUR TOPIC.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION, IT'S A CORRECTION.
THE MINUTES DO NOT ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZE THE MOTIONS THAT WERE MADE, UH, RELATIVE TO THE APPEAL THAT WE HEARD LAST MONTH.
UH, THE MINUTES SAY THAT THERE WAS A MOTION MADE BY MEMBER TON SECONDED BY ME TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION.
THE MOTION WAS TO HEAR THE MATTER.
IT THEN SAYS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS MADE BY MEMBER HOOPS
THAT WAS NOT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SO, UM, I WENT BACK, I LISTENED TO THE RECORDING, I READ THE TRANSCRIPT, THE MINUTES DO NOT REFLECT WHAT'S IN THOSE MATERIAL.
SO I BELIEVE THEY NEED TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE I WOULD GO TO APPROVE.
SO FOR CLARITY SIR? FOR CLARITY, SIR, WHAT, UM, IS YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION, UH, INVOLVING F TWO? CORRECT.
THE, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE THAT INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT A MOTION WAS MADE BY MEMBER ASKING AND SECONDED BY MEMBER HOWARD TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, THAT INSTEAD IT SAYS TO OPEN THE HEARING AND THEN IN THE NEXT LINE IT SAYS THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS MADE, I WOULD REMOVE THE WORD SUBSTITUTE.
'CAUSE IT WASN'T A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
AND SAME FIRST AND SECOND AS IS REPORTED IN THE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST MOTION.
THE OTHER OTHER ITEMS ARE CORRECT PLUS THOSE CHANGES.
IS THE COMMISSION CLEAR ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR CORRECTION? UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE.
SO WE HAVE NOW THAT BE THAT THERE IS A MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES? YEAH.
AND SO THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY JUDGE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO AMEND THE MINUTES? YES.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCISION.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDED MOTION? MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU, OH NO, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO THAT.
ARE, DO YOU READ THE, PLEASE READ THE MOTION.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, NO, WE ALREADY HAVE THE UPDATED FROM THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO THEN WE ARE NOW GOING TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCEPT THE AMENDED MINUTES.
AND THEN JUST TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM.
THERE'S NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE.
ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? MOTION IS CARRIED.
ALRIGHT, WE ARE NOW GETTING READY FOR A HEARING.
THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS AND CONDEMNATION IS,
[00:05:01]
IS ESTABLISHED BY THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18 ONE OH 0.020.TO PROVIDE A FORUM FOR REVIEW FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS TO UPDATE TO SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC S THE BOARD ALSO ACCESS HEARING OFFICERS AND CONDUCTS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, ASSESSED LEVIES AND APPEALS OF DISABLED ACCESS CASES.
THE BOARD CONDUCTS THE HEARING REGARDING TO ROBERT'S RULE OF ORDER.
FOR EACH ITEM, THE CLERK WILL READ THE CASE NUMBER AND PROPERTY ADDRESS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIVE MAY THEN COME TO THE PODIUM.
STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CASE REPORT IN 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 ISSUE.
MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES TO SWEAR IN OR PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSING TO ON AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE RAISE HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR? DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS HEARING SHALL BE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
PLEASE READ THE SECOND AGENDA.
ITEM ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING.
ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS THE BOARD'S FINDING DETERMINE THAT THE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO GUARD GARAGE LOCATED AT 5 9 1 1 LINTON AVENUE IS SUBSTANDARD AND A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
AND ORDER THE OWNERS TO DEMOLISH OR WE HAVE REHABILITATE THE STRUCTURE AS PER FINDINGS DATED SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 BY OCTOBER 20TH, 2025.
ALSO ORDER THE ORDERS TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE IN A SAFE, CLEAN, AND SECURE MANNER UNTIL THE DEMOLITION OR REHABILITATION IS, MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I MOVE TO OPEN THE HEARING.
MR. HOWARD MOVES TO OPEN THE HEARING.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SO TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE MOTION PENDING.
SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
NOBODY'S MADE A MOTION IN THIS MATTER THAT THAT'S WE'RE ASKING, WE'RE ASKING FOR A MOTION BASED ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD PERSON ASKED FOR.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT NOBODY MADE THAT MOTION.
SO, SO LET'S SEE IF SOMEONE'S WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION ON WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA BEFORE WE PROPOSE ANOTHER MOTION.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD WHO IS WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DETERMINE THAT THE ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS SUBSTANDARD AND A PUBLIC
PROCESSING THROUGH THOSE HAS WRITTEN IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR BROWN ACT PURPOSES AND THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC IS THE ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA AS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED WITHIN 72 HOURS OF THE HEARING, THE BOARD NEEDS TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THOSE ACTIONS AND ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD AND FAILING TO DO SO.
CONSIDER SUCH ITEMS COULD BE A VIOLATION OF CRIME.
AND IF I CAN JUST SPEAK REGARDING THIS, I THINK THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING WITH IT IS THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM AS IF IT IS FAIR TO THE OWNER TO ACCEPT THE REPORT WHEN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE STAFF REPORT.
I WOULD PREFER TO HEAR THE REPORT AND SAY, WOW, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
LISTEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DOING IT, AND THEN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCEPT SUCH A REPORT AS OPPOSED TO IF YOU ACCEPT IT BEFORE THE OWNER HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
IT SEEMS TO ME AS A MEMBER OF A PUBLIC THAT IT'S SLANTED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY.
AND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WORKING ON THE AGENDA LANGUAGE, UM, AND THOSE ARE CHANGES THAT ARE UNDERWAY AND BEING DISCUSSED NOW.
UM, AND SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE CONCERN HERE IS THE BROWN MAP AND NOTICING THE PUBLIC APPROPRIATELY OF THE MOTIONS AND ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD.
AND I'M NOT TELLING YOU, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT PROCEED, I'M JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT ISSUE FOR YOU.
WELL, I GUESS I, I MEAN THE BROWN ACT WANTS PEOPLE TO HAVE NOTICE OF WHAT THE MATTERS ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED, AT LEAST
[00:10:01]
FROM MY TRAINING THAT I TOOK ON THIS.IT DOESN'T GET AS SPECIFIC AS SAYING WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING WOULD BE OR THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO HAVE IT HERE, I GUESS.
SO LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THIS FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
MY INTERPRETATION, WHICH MAY BE INCORRECT, IS THAT THE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY HAVE A CONSENSUS TO ACCOMPLISH WOULD BE TO REJECT TO VOTE NO ON THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONCLUDE, WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT PRESUMABLY OF SENDING THIS BACK TO STAFF WHERE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REFRAME THE MOTION FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
DO WE, SO THE FIRST OF ALL IS, IS THAT A FAIR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US? SO I I THINK THAT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW IS A REQUEST FROM STAFF TO CONFIRM THEIR FINDINGS, WHICH IS PART OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THIS BOARD PURSUANT TO THEIR CHART.
AND THAT'S WHY THE AMENDMENT, THE, UH, ACT AGENDA ITEM IS PHRASED THE WAY IT IS PHRASED.
THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL AS IS THE KIND OF CASE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WHERE THE APPELLANT IS RAISING AN ISSUE TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN A SUBSTANDARD BUILDING CASE IS TO APPROVE AND AFFIRM IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE SAME, THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION IS WE WOULD LIKE THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE PHRASED, HEAR THE REPORTS LOOSELY HERE, HEAR THE REPORT FROM STAFF, CONFIRM OR DENY THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
AND I LIKE THAT LANGUAGE MYSELF.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS BE INEFFICIENT WITH OUR TIME AND REQUIRE EVERYBODY TO COME BACK OR RUN IF ANY ISSUE WITH THE BROWN ACT AND CONSIDERING DIFFERENT MOTIONS AND OPTIONS THAN HAVE BEEN DECLARED, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE LAWS AND RULES FOR COMMISSION.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION OR ASKING FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
IF AS IN THE LAST CHAIRING THAT WE HAD OR THE ONE BEFORE, IF A HOMEOWNER IS APPEALING A DECISION, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE PHRASED IN THIS MANNER.
WE WOULD HEAR IT AND THEN DECIDE IT WOULDN'T BE TO ACCEPT THE, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO WE DON'T HAVE FINAL VERBIAGE FOR WHAT THE APPEAL LANGUAGE WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF MYSELF AND THE STATE CLERK'S OFFICE.
I'M NOT MISREPRESENTING ANYTHING FOR ANYONE ELSE'S LINE OF THINKING ABOUT THE CONCERN WITH THE AGENDA ITEM AT OUR LAST MEETING WAS THAT THIS WAS, THE WAY THE MOTION WAS WORDED, AND I'LL GO ON RECORD AND SAY I AGREE WITH YOU, WAS THAT IT WAS TO DENY AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL HAD BEEN HEARD.
AND I UNDERSTOOD I UNDER AND IT ALSO CREATED IN MY OPINION LIKE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE WITH HOW VOTING COULD POTENTIALLY WORK.
AND SO IT NEEDED CLARIFICATION AND MODIFICATION BOTH FOR CLARITY, WHICH IS AGAIN A BROWN NECK RESPONSIBILITY AND ALSO FOR THE APPEARANCES OF PROPRIETY AND FAIRNESS FOR EVERYONE THAT WAS ATTENDING.
IN MY MIND THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
IT COULD STILL BE RESTRUCTURED, BUT THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC FUNCTION OF REVIEWING SUBSTANDARD BUILDING DECLARATIONS BY STAFF.
SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN, UM, EXACTLY THE SAME CONCERNS THAT WERE PRESENT IN THE APPEAL SITUATION AND AS STILL DISCUSSED BEFORE, WELL I WOULD AGREE IN ELEGANT ROBERT'S RULES AS WRITTEN REQUIRE A MOTION AND A SECOND BEFORE A DISCUSSION CAN BE HELD, WHICH IS AN ODD FIT FOR A COMMISSION LIKE THIS ONE.
ROBERT'S RULES AND WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT A TRAINING AS ITEM THREE.
THE ROBERT'S RULES IS KIND OF A ONE SIZE FITS ALL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE THAT WORKS ON NON-PROFIT BOARDS, CORPORATE BOARDS, GOVERNMENT BOARDS ACROSS THE BOARD.
IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY FIT WELL TO THE PRACTICES OF EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES.
AND EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES OFTEN MODIFY ROBERT'S RULES OR THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT'S RULES IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCE TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS AND PURPOSES OF THAT BOARD.
IN ALL PUBLIC SETTINGS OF BROWN ACT IS A BIG ISSUE THAT ROBERT RO DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ACCOUNT FOR.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR SETTING, WHAT ROBERT RO DOESN'T PARTICULARLY ACCOUNT FOR IS THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T ALWAYS CONTROL ITS AGENDA 'CAUSE PEOPLE HAVE MATTERS OF RIGHT TO COME AND BE HEARD BEFORE YOU AND CITY PROCESSES REQUIRE YOUR CONSENT AND APPROVAL FOR THINGS LIKE DECLARATIONS OF SUBSTANDARD VILLAGE.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE A NORMAL CORPORATE MEETING OR EVEN LIKE A LEGISLATIVE MEETING WHERE THE ACTION IS DRIVEN BY THE DESIRES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
HERE YOUR WORK IS GIVEN TO YOU BY MANDATE OF THE MUNICIPAL CHARTER.
[00:15:01]
TO HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.I KNOW IT TO HAVE TO HEAR SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE DISCRETION NOT TO HEAR.
UM, BUT IT IS THE WAY THAT ROBERTS RULES IS SET UP AND WE HAVEN'T CHANGED THAT FOR THIS BOARD.
AND THE CHARTER SAYS THAT WE WILL USE ROBERT'S RULES AND FOLLOW ROBERT'S RULES.
SO THIS IS HOPEFULLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET INTO AT AND AFTER OUR TRAINING FOR ROBERT'S RULES.
UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M GONNA DIRECT IT BACK TO THIS MOTION AND THIS AGENDA ITEM NOW AS BEST I CAN, UM, ANSWER MR. ASPEN'S QUESTION THAT IS AN OPTION.
HE COULD SIMPLY VOTE DOWN THIS AGENDA ITEM NOW 'CAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT WAS PHRASED AND WE COULD MOVE ON OR WE COULD HAVE, I I THE PROPER PROCESS UNDER ROBERT'S RULES WOULD BE FOR A FIRST AND A SECOND TO DISCUSS IT, TO BEGIN DISCUSSION ON IT.
AND THEN FOR A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO BE MADE.
SO AS I SEE IT CONSISTENT WITH ROBERT'S RULES, THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.
SO YOU'RE, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD MAKE A, PROPERLY MAKE A MOTION TO DISCUSS AGENDA ITEM TWO AND HEAR A PRESENTATION? NO, I'M SAYING THAT THE, THE AS AGENDA IS WE COULD GET A FIRST AND A SECOND AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE A MOTION OR, OR FRIENDLY OR A DISCUSSION ALL OF THE ABOVE OR NOBODY MAY 1ST AND SECOND AND WE'LL PROCEED ONTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
AND IN, IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS WHEN THE AGENDA HAS BEEN STRUCTURED THIS WAY, UM, I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE WE'VE DONE THAT AGAIN IN THE LAST MEETING OR TWO, BUT AFTER ACCEPTING THIS, THE CASE IS BROUGHT UP, UH, THE PEOPLE CAN SPEAK AND ALSO THE CITY OFFICIALS GIVE TESTIMONY, RIGHT? AND THEN WE ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION AS PART OF OUR, UM, SORT OF, UM, ASSESS THEM.
I MAY SAY THAT, RIGHT? SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANOTHER MOTION.
YOU WOULD JUST CONDUCT A VOTE ON WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN FIRSTED AND SECONDED AFTER ALL THE INFORMATION IS HEARD AND YOUR, YOUR MOTION AND YOUR SECOND ARE NOT BINDING ON YOUR DECISION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION.
AND, UH, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS AWKWARD AND I DON'T LOVE THIS SETUP, SO PLEASE DO CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S NORMALLY THE PROCESS AS IT FLOWS HERE.
WAS THAT CLEAR? WELL, LET ME TRY THIS.
SO WHAT, IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHTLY YOU'RE SAYING SOMEONE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT SOMEONE ELSE COULD SECOND, A THIRD MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, LET'S SAY, COULD COME FORWARD AND SAY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE ON ITEM NUMBER TWO.
IS THAT CORRECT OR INCORRECT? THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
WE CAN BEGIN DISCUSSION WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBSTITUTE FOR AMENDED OR FRIENDLY MOTION.
ONE THAT'S BEEN PERSON AND SECONDED TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION ABSENT THE FIRST AND SECOND, THE ITEM DOES NOT COME TO THE COMMISSION, NO OTHER THING HAS BEEN AGENDIZED.
AND SO WE WOULD PROCEED ONTO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
ARE WE EXPECTING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SHOW UP MAYBE FOR THIS ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE.
UM, AND, AND I GUESS I'LL ALSO SAY THAT I DON'T PERSONALLY VIEW THE CONDEMNATION MUCH DIFFERENT THAN AN APPEAL.
I WOULD THINK IN MOST CASES THE THE SUBJECT OF THE CONDEMNATION IS GONNA NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN AND THEY'RE GONNA WANNA AGGREGATE COURT.
SO I I PERSONALLY THINK WE SHOULD TREAT THEM PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
UM, AND IN BOTH CASES NOT HAVE THAT INITIAL, UH, MOTION.
HOWEVER, TO MOVE THINGS ALONG, I AM WILLING TO CHANGE MY POINT OF VIEW AND ADOPT TO, TO MOVE THE RECOMMENDATION AS WRITTEN SINCE NO ONE'S GONNA BE HARMED BY DOING THAT.
I ALSO JUST WANNA SAY THAT, AND I HADN'T RUN INTO THIS BEFORE AS CHAIR, I'M NOT WRITING THESE MOTIONS.
AND SO THAT IS I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WHERE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, IF IF I DIDN'T DO IT, THE CITY WAS DOING IT, IT MAKES SENSE THAT THE CITY WOULD SAY, YEAH, WE SHOULD ADOPT THIS MOTION.
AND AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYTHING UNTIL WE TAKE THE VOTE AND WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.
SO WE COULD EITHER TURN DOWN THE MOTION OR ONCE WE START HEARING AMEN.
AND IF THAT'S OKAY BY EVERYBODY, I WOULD ASK IF WE CAN HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AS THE BOARD'S FINDINGS DETERMINE THAT
[00:20:01]
THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 59 11 LI LINDON AVENUE IS SUBSTANDARD AND PUBLIC ANCE AND ORDER OWNERS TO DEMOLISH OR REHABILITATE THE STRUCTURE AS PER FINDINGS DATED SEPTEMBER 15TH BY OCTOBER 15TH, 2025.I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION FOR THIS SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
UM, SO NORMALLY WE WOULD DO A FRIENDLY ONCE YOU GUYS START HAVING YOUR DISCUSSION.
THAT'S I WAS GONNA SAY, YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THE NEXT THING ONCE WE HAVE IT MOVED IN SECONDED IS THAT IT TURNS IT OVER TO STAFF FOR THE REPORT AND THEN AFTER THAT, OH, OKAY.
I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO, OH, THE, THE CORRECT GETS TO SAY THAT I'M SO SORRY JUST FOR THIS SITUATION.
UM, THE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AN UPDATED STAFF REPORT IN ADDITION TO THEIR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION, SORRY.
REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND IT IS HELPFUL AND WE WANT THESE PROCESSES TO BE CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT AND ACCEPTABLE AND HAVE
I KNOW WE ALREADY HAVE PROPRIETY AND FACT AND WE ALSO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING REASONABLE TO GET THE APPEAR OF PROPRIETY IN ALL OUR, SO I APPRECIATE EVERYONE.
UH, I'M DANIEL LAY, COMBINATION BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT.
ON APRIL 8TH, 2025, CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED A ALLEGED ALLEGING OR RECEIVED A COMPLAINT, ALLEGED TRASH, DEBRIS AT AND POSSIBLE SQUAD IN 59 11 RELATED AVENUE.
COURT ENFORCEMENT LEARNED THAT THE BUILDING EXPERIENCED FIRE DAMAGE AND BUILDING HAD RED TAG AND PROPERTY DNA UNCLEAR AND ORDERING NO ONE THE STRUCTURE.
I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND IDENTIFIED ONE SINGLE STORAGE, ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED TO A CAR GARAGE.
THE PROPERTY HAS SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE ROOF, SUPPORTING STRUCTURED STRUCTURAL FRAME MEMBERS, WALLS, UH, PLATES, HEADERS, CEILING, ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS, MUCH ARE ALL THE DAMAGE APPARENTLY CAUSED BY THE FIRE.
THE INSPECTION ALSO DISCOVERED TRASH, DEBRIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE OF LEGAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
ON MAY 20TH I OBTAINED ON MAY 20TH, 2025, I OBTAINED AN ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT TO ABATE THE TRASH DEBRIS AND ACCUMULATE ACCUMULATED ON THE PROPERTY AND TO CLEAR THE PROPERTY ON MAY 22ND, 2025, CODE ENFORCEMENT EVA, THE TRASH AND THE DEBRIS AND SECURED THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE OF THE WALL.
ON JULY 24TH, 2025, CODE ENFORCEMENT GREEN INSPECTED PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN SECURITY DAMAGED AND DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
BASED ON THE CONDITIONS I OBSERVED, I DECLARE THE BUILDING SUBSTANDARD AND THE SAME DAY
OTHER THAN THE ACCUMULATION OF TRACTION DEBRIS, THE STRUCTURE HAS APPEARED.
THE REVIEW OF THE RECORDS REVEALED THE PERMITS HAVE NOT BEEN OBTAINED, DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN FOR YOUR REVIEW.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU MAY HAVE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION? UM, YOU ACTUALLY HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE OWNERS.
HAVE THEY RESPONDED IN ANY WAY? DO WE KNOW THEY EVEN RECEIVED THE NOTICES? UM, NO SIR.
I BELIEVE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN DECEASED.
TWO OUT OF THE THREE, I BELIEVE THE YOUNGEST OR DAUGHTER? THE DAUGHTER IS ALIVE, BUT SHE IS UNABLE TO BE CONTACTED.
UM, LET'S SEE, YOU SAID THIS IS A REVISED STAFF REPORT.
IS THAT REPLACING ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE? SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT, YEAH.
I HAVE, I GUESS THERE IS A PHOTO IN HERE THAT I WAS NOT SURE, BUT I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO REFERENCE IT.
WHAT EXHIBIT IS IT? UH, IT LOOKS PAST ONLY PHOTO.
UM, SO DATED THURSDAY, JULY, OCTOBER, 2020 5, 11 49.
[00:25:01]
PROPERTY A LABOR? YES.SO I I GUESS I JUST WASN'T SURE WHAT THAT WAS THERE FOR.
UM, NOT, I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER PICTURE THAT
UM, I ALSO NOTICED THAT UNLIKE THE LAST CONDEMNATION, THIS ONE DOESN'T EXPLICITLY SAY THAT THE OWNERS DON'T DEMOLISH IT, THE CITY WILL.
UM, IS THAT A INTENTIONAL DIFFERENCE OR IS THERE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT? THIS IS THE REPORT.
IT DOESN'T, UNLIKE THE OTHER ONE, IF I'M REMEMBER THESE CORRECTLY, THAT ONE EXPLICITLY SAID, IF YOU DON'T TEAR DOWN, WELL THIS ONE DOESN'T SAY THAT.
SO JUST, AND I THINK, AND I COULD BE WRONG, I THINK THIS IS STEP ONE.
AND IF WE ADOPT THIS RECOMMENDATION AND IT THEN GOES TO THE OWNERS THAT AFTER THAT, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY SAID YES, IT SHOULD BE THAT THE CITY WOULD THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY, IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, WE WILL.
AND OH YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY RECORDS OF WHEN THE FIRE OCCURRED? IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S EVIDENCE OF A, A STRUCTURE OF FIRE AND I WANNA SEE THE TIMELINE.
ONE OF THE REASONS, I JUST WANNA SEE HOW LONG THAT PROPERTY HAD BEEN DAMAGED IN THAT FASHIONED AND ALSO HOW MUCH HAS IT BEEN A HUB FOR
AND IN CASE THE OWNERS WERE HURT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY ARE IN A HOSPITAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU STILL HAVE TO CONTACT THEM.
SO THAT QUESTION DON'T HAVE, BUT I DO WANNA HAVE THE TIMELINE OF ANY, UH, PUBLIC RECORD OR PRIOR RESPONSE.
SO MY NAME IS SUSAN, I'M THE PRINCIPAL OF PROGRAM INSPECTOR, UM, DANIEL, UH, SUPERVISOR OF 36.
UM, APRIL THE EIGHTH IS WHEN WE FIRST WERE CONTACTED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY ABOUT THE FIRE DAMAGE AND THAT'S WHEN, UH, AND THEY POSTED THE PROPERTY AND SECURED AT THAT TIME, WE BASICALLY FOLLOWED UP ON THEIR REFERRAL TO GO OUT AND REVISIT AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY.
AND AT THE TIME, THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN IN
AND UM, WE ALWAYS HAVE THESE RESIDENTS THERE THAT CLAIM TO BE THERE, BUT EVERYONE SAID THEY'RE JUST SQUATTING AS FAR WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROVINCE HAS PASSED AWAY.
THERE WAS ONE DAUGHTER LEFT, BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE SHE IS AT.
THERE'S NO, UM, MAILING ADDRESS WE CAN EVEN FIND FOR THEM.
THERE ARE MANY RUMORS, SO WE CAN'T HELP WITH THE NOTIFICATION TO HER AT ALL.
SO WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING THIS PROPERTY FOR, UH, TRASHING DEBRIS AND USING SQUATTING FOR A FEW YEARS AND THEN THE FIRE OCCURRED.
THAT'S WHEN WE START TAKING STEPS.
UH, SINCE APRIL EIGHT NUMBERS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE PROPERTY PREVIOUS TO THE 2025 AND THE IMAGES THAT WE HAVE HERE.
SO, UM, AS WE SAID, WE WENT, WE WENT AND DID THE INSPECTION ON APRIL, UM, APRIL ABLE ABLE TO AGE AND WE HAVE NOTIFY THE OWNER AS BEST AS WE CAN.
WE BASICALLY DID WHAT WE CAN FIND OR TO NOTIFY EVERY PARTY THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, TO NOT AVAIL AND HENCE WE START, UH, PURSUING THE WA UH,
SO MAY 20TH, WE FINALLY GOT A WARRANT AND WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE PROP, UH, THE PROPERTY AND WE CLEANED UP, UM, THE PROPERTY AND SECURED IT FROM THE SQUATTERS.
UM, SINCE THEN WE STILL ATTEMPT, WE MAY STILL TRYING TO MAKE SOME ATTEMPT TO FIND IF THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER SHOWED UP, BUT WE STILL NEVER HEARD FROM HER NOR ANYBODY THAT'S RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY.
AND SO ON JULY 24TH, THAT'S WHEN WE DECIDED WE HAVE TO DO THIS PROPERTY, UM, MASON AND
UH, IF HERE OF THERE'S MORE PEOPLE GOING, COME BACK ON THIS
[00:30:01]
PROPERTY.I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO MR. HOWARD.
AND MY ONLY QUESTION FOR YOU IS THAT IT SAYS THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SQUATTERS OR SOMETHING BEYOND THAT? UH, YES.
DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? UH, UH, JUST ONE OTHER ONE.
I NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN PRE FORECLOSURE.
THERE'S A $278,000 MORTGAGE ON IT.
UM, MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY WE DIDN'T, THE CITY DIDN'T THREATEN TO KNOCK IT DOWN BECAUSE IF THE LENDER FORECLOSES AND THEY'RE GONNA BE ON THE HOOK TO FIX IT.
UM, AND, AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THAT PLAYS INTO THIS.
IT WOULD BE IN SOME WAYS BETTER IF THE LENDER DIDN'T FORECLOSE AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO SOMETHING GET ANY MONEY OUT, BUT DON'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THAT.
SO WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO CONTACT ALL PARTIES THAT HAVE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES.
UM, IN SOME CASES WE DO REACH OUT, WE GET NO RESPONSE.
AND SO THE CITY HAS, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT EVEN, UM, IN YOUR BOOK ON ITEM ONE, EXHIBIT FOUR, WE NOTICE THAT WE POST THERE ON THE BOTTOM PORTION.
WE COPY ALL INTERESTED PARTIES THAT WE'RE AWARE OF.
SO WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE CHECK UTILITY AND WE LOOK AT THE LEGAL DOC, UH, THE LEGAL ADDRESS ON FILE, WHICH IS WITH THE COUNTY THEY BOUGHT US, REQUIRES US TO MAIL IT TO THAT PARTICULAR ADDRESS.
UH, BUT WE ALSO ASKED AROUND TO TRY TO GET AHOLD OF A FAMILY MEMBER NEXT TO KIM.
UH, WE, WE, WE POST THE PROPERTY AND SEND, WE GET THE COPIES ON ALL OUR, ALL OUR CORRESPONDENCE, UM, WHICH REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW.
SO WE SEND A MAIL, A COPY OF THE LETTERS TO ALL THOSE PARTIES THAT ARE LISTED THERE.
UM, SO AGAIN, IF THEY DON'T RESPOND, NOT MUCH WE CAN DO THERE.
BUT THE EXCEPTION OF FOLLOW THIS PROCESS THAT AT THIS POINT WHERE WE'VE NOTIFIED EVERYONE, WE'VE ADOPTED ALL OUR OPTIONS, THIS LOCATION'S A PROBLEM WITH THE COMMUNITY THERE.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, EITHER THE OWNER HAS NOT RESPONDED OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THERE WE FOUND OUT, AND ODDLY ENOUGH, STATE LAW STILL REQUIRES US, EVEN IF WE VERIFY THAT THEIR CERTIFICATE, THAT THE PERSON'S DECEASED STATE LAW STILL REQUIRES US TO MAIL THEM A COPY OF THE NOTICES EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE DEAD, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
SO WE STILL DO THAT AND THE RECORD OF FILE HERE IS THE ACTUAL ADDRESS.
SO WE CAN MAIL THESE, THE LETTERS TO THE DECEASED PERSON, BUT THAT'S WHAT STATE LAW TELLS US TO DO.
UH, SO WE HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OF THAT.
SO NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE NO ONE'S DONE ANYTHING INCLUDING THE HOLDERS OF THE MORTGAGE OF NOTE.
SO NOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD OR EITHER CAN WE SALVAGE THE PROPERTY IF WE CAN'T, MOST LIKELY WE'RE GONNA MOVE HOME TO DEMO.
AND THEN WE'LL HOPEFULLY HAVE SOMETHING HAPPEN THERE WHERE WE COLLECT OUR FUNDS BACK FROM WHOEVER ENDS UP PURCHASING THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY GOT PAY UP.
AND SO WE'LL PUT A LIEN FOR ALL OUR FEES AND EXPENSES.
UH, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT, SIR.
LIKE I SAID, THEY SPEND A LOT, I SPEND A LOT OF TIME RESEARCHING.
THEY'RE LIKE DETECTIVES TRYING TO FIND OUT ANYONE THAT HAS ANY INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY.
WE EVEN GO TO THE TECH COLLECTOR TO SEE WHO'S PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S A DIFFERENT PERSON, UM, BECAUSE THEY DON'T CHANGE THE TITLE.
UM, SO SOMEBODY'S IN CONTROL OF IT, SO THEY STILL PAY THE TAXES.
SO WE EVEN GO AS FAR AS CHECKING WHO PAID THE TAXES AND SOMETIMES IN THIS CASE THEY DON'T PAY IT EITHER.
UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU WOULD BE FINE.
UM, SO THAT, THAT THAT'S THE WAY, SO THE CITY DOES KNOCK DOWN, YOU HAVE A, A REASONABLE PATH TO, TO DO THAT.
SO WE ARE ABLE TO RECOUP OUR, OUR OUR COSTS, UM, LEGALLY.
DOES DOES SOUND LIKE YOU'VE DONE CONSIDERABLE DUE DILIGENCE, BUT THE ONE THING I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, WHAT DID YOU FIND WHEN YOU LOOKED AT PROPERTY TAXES? HAVE THE MOST RECENT PROPERTY TAXES BEEN PAID? I, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS.
DO YOU, DO YOU REMEMBER IF THEY'VE PAID THE LAST PAYMENT? NO, I, I DIDN'T CHECK THIS YEAR'S.
I THINK THEY ARE ACTUALLY CLOSE TO UP TO DATE, UM, WHICH WAS SURPRISING TO ME.
OH, AND I GUESS ONE OTHER THING I'LL POINT OUT IS THAT BASED ON MY REVIEW OF THE PACKAGE, THE DAUGHTER IS AN OWNER, NOT JUST THE DAUGHTER.
SHE'S ON THE DEAN, UH, WHO KNOWS WHAT THE OTHER TWO WILL SAID, BUT SHE IS AN OWNER, JUST THE DAUGHTER.
SO WE, WE TRY TO NOTIFY ALL PARTIES SO WE CAN TALK TO THEM HIGHER.
WE CAN, UNFORTUNATELY, WE SEE A PATTERN SOMETIMES WHERE, UH, THE PARENTS ARE DECEASED AND THE CHILDREN, WHETHER IT BE ADULT CHILDREN OR NOT, SOMETIMES THEY MAKE NOT GOOD DECISIONS IN LIFE AND UP ON THE STREET OFF AND ON AND THINGS LIKE THAT NATURE.
SO THAT COMPLICATES IT FOR US.
[00:35:01]
BUT AGAIN, WE'RE STILL REQUIRED TO POST THE PROPERTY AND NOTICE THE PROPERTY AND SO WE'LL FOLLOW OUR PROCESS JUST AGAIN, BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS JUST NUISANCE FOR THE COMMUNITY THERE.THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED WITH HOSPITAL SQUATTERS COMING IN AND THEN ADDITIONAL FIRES OCCURRING.
BUT THAT'S OUR MAIN CONCERN IS, IS TO KEEP PREP FROM OCCURRING AGAIN.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES NOW HERE GOING THROUGH OUR PROCESS OF ESTABLISHED BY, BY THE CODE, UH, TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
AND SO THIS PROCESS IS TIMELY.
UM, SO THIS IS NOT THE END AS YOU KNOW,
AND I THINK I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
I NOTICED YOU CONTACTED CITIBANK AND THE MORTGAGE COMPANY AND THE TITLE COMPANY AND THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT, THIS ISN'T CLEARLY YOU'VE DONE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WAS MERITED, BUT DID THOSE ENTITIES NOT RESPOND AT ALL OR WERE THEY NOT ABLE TO PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNER? WE NEVER HEARD FROM ANYONE REGARDING OF THIS PROPERTY AT ALL.
NO ONE REACHED OUT, NO ONE FACT THAT ANYBODY KNEW.
SO CITIBANK, NONE OF THE MORTGAGE COMPANY HAS EVER, UM, CONTACTED US, CALLED US, UM, WE NOTIFIED THEM, WE GIVE THEM THE RECORD, WE GIVE THEM THE, UH, ACCOUNT NUMBER.
SO AT THIS POINT WE CAN'T, WE DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE TO CONTACT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS PER STEP? WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE LINE UP IN FRONT.
LET IT BE NOTED THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AT THE MEETING MEMBERS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT THEN ON, WE ARE NOW GOING TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, AND THE FIND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND HAVE IT BE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS TO DETERMINE THAT THIS ONE STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS SUBSTANDARD AND A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
AND ORDER THE OWNERS TO DEMOLISH OR REHABILITATE THE STRUCTURE AS PER FINDINGS.
ALSO ORDER THE OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE IN A SAFE, CLEAN, AND SECURE MANNER UNTIL THE DEMOLITION OR REHABILITATION IS COMPLETE.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
AND, AND MEMBERS, LET ME REMIND YOU IF YOU VOTE.
AYE OR YES, YOU ARE ADOPTING A CITY'S FINDING MEMBER ENRIQUE AYE UH, MEMBER HOWARD? AYE.
CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION? AND AND IT JUST HIT ME AS, AS THE CHAIR WAS READING THE MOTION AGAIN.
OH, SOUNDS LIKE NOBODY EXPECTS THIS TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? WE'RE, WE'RE ISSUING AN ORDER THAT WILL NOT BE, NOTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN.
ENABLES THE CITY TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP TO EXTENT.
OKAY, WE ARE NOW READY TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WE'VE ALREADY HAD PUBLIC COMMENT FURTHER.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE THIRD AGENDA ITEM.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ THE THIRD AGENDA.
NUMBER THREE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO DISCUSS PROSPECTIVE DATES AND TIMES TO RECEIVING VALIDATION ON THE ROUTE AND BROWN HUNT ROBERTS WILL OF ORDER AND COURT FROM THE CITY'S OFFICE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS? I, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS A MOTION TO DISCUSS PROSPECTIVE DATES AND TIMES TO RECEIVE A FILE PRESENTATION ON THE BROWN ACT, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS AND THE ROLE OF THE BOARD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I WILL NOW TURN THINGS OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE REPORT.
OH, WE'RE JUST RIGHT NOW TRYING TO FIND DATES.
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALL OF OUR NEWER BOARD MEMBERS HERE TODAY, SO WE WANTED TO, UM, TRY TO FIND A DATE, WHICH WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT WE WOULD GET EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S DIFFICULT TO DO.
UM, IF WE CAN'T FIND THAT IN THE ROUGH IN THE NEAR FUTURE IN FOUR YEARS, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE LARGEST NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS WE CAN FIND.
BUT THE HOPE IS THAT WE CAN FIND A DATE.
[00:40:01]
BE SPECIALLY SET, UM, A DATE WHICH EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND.I UNDERSTAND FROM MS. HOOP THAT IT'S EASIER FOR HER ON WEEKDAYS BETWEEN THE STARTING MEETING AT TWO O'CLOCK.
YES, UH, SHE'S OPEN, UM, AND FOR THE MOST PART ANY DAY.
UM, BUT BETWEEN TWO AND 5:00 PM WORK GOOD FOR HER.
SO I WAS HOPING IF WE CAN ALL TAKE A DAY AND MAYBE START ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK.
WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE THREE HOURS.
SO, YOU KNOW, SHE SHE HAS TO BE GONE BY FIVE THOUGH.
IS THAT NO, I THINK JUST, I THINK STARTING THE MEETING ANYTIME IN THAT TIMEFRAME IS GOOD IN THAT WINDOW.
AND I'LL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED FEW THINGS.
I CAN'T MOVE LIKE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND LIKE, UM, BUT IS THERE ANY DATE OR TIME? IS THERE LIKE ARE WE TALKING LIKE IN A WEEK OR, OR IS THERE A GENERAL RANGE WE'RE LOOKING FOR? I, I'D LOVE TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE FROM TWO WEEKS OUT TO EIGHT WEEKS OUT.
THURSDAY AFTERNOONS AT TWO ARE NOT GOOD FOR ME BECAUSE I HAVE A STANDING MEETING ON THE THIRD MONDAY THAT STARTS AT THREE THAT I'VE BEEN MOVING TOO LATE AND STARTING IN JANUARY THAT MEETING SHOULD MOVE TO FOUR O'CLOCK.
AND SO THAT'S MY ONE CONFLICT.
YOU MONDAYS GOOD FOR EVERYONE.
CAN WE JUST CHOOSE ANOTHER MONDAY AND JUST START AT TWO O'CLOCK? DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU GUYS? AS LONG AS IT'S NOT THE THIRD MONDAY, I'M GOOD.
AS LONG AS IT'S RIGHT AND YES, EXACTLY.
UM, BUT UM, I CAN CHECK FOR, DO WE HAVE TO LIKE CONFIRM A DATE RIGHT NOW? UM, I WOULD LIKE WE COULD, YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO.
HOW WAS OCTOBER 13TH? CAN I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE? THAT'S A MONDAY WORKS FOR ME AND, AND I THINK WE'RE TALKING TWO O'CLOCK UNTIL I HEAR OTHERWISE FROM ANYBODY.
IT IT IS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE'S DAY.
YOU DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY IS OPEN OR IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
OKAY, WE'RE WE GOT THE VOTING DAY.
DOES THAT WORK? ARE WE GOOD? WORKS FOR ME.
OKAY, SO WE'LL SEND OUT A SPECIAL NOTICE FOR THAT MEETING AND THAT'LL BE THE ONLY AGENDA ITEM YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE'LL HAVE, WE'LL HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT WAYS WE CAN ENHANCE EFFICIENCY AND CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY TOO.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2:00 PM IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
NO FURTHER DISCUSSION I GUESS.
AND DO WE VOTE ON THAT ONE? YES.
PROCEDURALLY, SO WE HAVE THE MOTION THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT PROSPECTIVE DATES AND TIMES.
AARON HAD SUGGESTED OCTOBER 13TH AT 2:00 PM MADAM CLERK, OR I'M SORRY, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? THE OTHER MOTION WAS JUST TO DISCUSS, I THOUGHT MAYBE SO WE COULD DO A FRIENDLY TO SET THAT DATE.
UH, SO IT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SET THE DATE FOR THAT PRESENTATION ON OCTOBER 13TH AT C PM SO MR. HOUSER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE SAID MOTION? I, I HE'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL.
SO IF REMEMBER ASKING, AGREES WITH THAT FROM ME TO MAKE, TO MARK THAT AS THE DATE TIME.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE THAT OCTOBER 13TH AT 2:00 PM IS OUR PERSPECTIVE, DATE FOR RECEIVING AND FILING A PRESENTATION OF THE BROWN ACT.
ROBERT RULES OF ORDERS AND THE ROLE OF THE BOARD AND IT WILL BE THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
DO I NEED TO ASK FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN OR NO? UH, ALRIGHT, SO MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
[00:45:01]
IS CARRIED.IS THERE A FOURTH AGENDA ITEM? YES, A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE FILE.
THE MANAGEMENT COURT FORGETTING REPORT.
IS THERE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE OR IS THERE, IS THAT WHERE WE SAY IT? YES.
IS THERE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MANAGER'S REPORT? I WILL MOVE TO RECEIVING FILE.
ALL I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO MR. ADO, UH, BOARD MEMBERS.
MR. ADO, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE LINE UP IN FRONT.
THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF PUBLIC HERE, MEMBERS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE, DO WE HAVE TO ACCEPT, ACCEPT THAT THERE'S NO REPORTING.
VOTE ON THAT, THAT WE ACCEPT IT? DON'T HAVE TO, BUT PROCEDURALLY IT'S VERY CLEAN.
BUT
ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOUR REPORT.
I JUST WANNA SAY, MADAM CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE? MEMBER ENRIQUE.
WE WILL NOW TAKE NON AGENDA, PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
SEEING NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT, THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING FOR DEALING WITH OUR BUSINESS IS OCTOBER 20TH.
BUT KEEP IN MIND, WE JUST AGREED OCTOBER 13TH AT 2:00 PM TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BROWN ACT AND ROBERT'S RULES.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I DECLARE THE MEETING ADJOURNED.