* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS AND CONDEMNATION MEETING TO ORDER FOR OCTOBER 13TH, 2025. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MEMBER RODRIGUEZ HERE. MEMBER HOOPS HERE. MEMBER POWER PRESENT. MEMBER POWERS VICE CHAIR ASKIN HERE. CHAIR LIPSON. HERE WE HAVE QUORUM. THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK IS MEMBER POWERS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING. FOR THE RECORD, MEMBER POWERS IS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO THIS EXCUSED ABSENCE? I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE, GO AHEAD. I WOULD RAISE AN OBJECTION TO THE EXCUSE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THAT MEMBER DOES NOT APPEAR FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MEMBERS ALL ALL IN FAVOR OF MAKING MEMBER POWERS ABSENCE. UNEXCUSED SAY AYE. I GUESS ONE QUESTION, WAS THAT A MOTION AND DO WE NEED A SECOND? IF SO, I WOULD SECOND IT. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION. OKAY. OKAY. JUST, ALRIGHT. SO THE BOARD STATES THAT MEMBER POWER'S ABSENCE IS UNEXCUSED FOR THIS MEETING. MOVING ON MS. HOOPS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? SURE, PLEASE. ABEL AND CASE WITH BLACK ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR FANS ON NATION UNDER GOD AND INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR THANK YOU. IT IS. MAY I? OKAY. WE ARE RECOMMENDED TO RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION ON THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT, ROBERTS RULES OF ORDERS AND THE ROLE OF THE BOARD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THIS ITEM? I WILL MOVE THAT. WE HEAR THAT. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. EXCELLENT. WE HAVE, IT HAS BEEN MOVED BY MEMBER HOWARD AND SECONDED BY MEMBER ASKIN TO HEAR THIS, TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE PRESENTATION ON THE RALPH BROWN HACK. I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO THE STAFF FOR THEIR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH, HONOR BOARD MEMBER NICK FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. TODAY'S PRESENTATION WILL COME TO YOU IN THREE SUBSTANTIVE PARTS. THE FIRST PART WILL BE THE ROLE AND JURISDICTION OF BAC AS SET FORTH IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THE SECOND PART WILL BE THE APPLICATION, WHICH WITH BROWN ACT TO OUR PROCEEDINGS. AND THE THIRD WILL BE ROBERT'S RULES AND ORDERS OF PROCEDURE FOR THE BOARD. JUMPING RIGHT IN. OUR MISSION HERE AT BA IS TO PROVIDE AN IMPARTIAL REVIEW OF BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT, UNSAFE OR SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES, NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND RESOLVING CERTAIN APPEALS SPECIFIED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE. OUR GOVERNING STATUTE IS LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18 PART 10, SECTION PART 10. AND THEN SECTION 0 2 0 DEFINES OUR PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND THAT'S WHERE THE BEGINNING OF OUR INSTRUCTIONS COME FROM. OUR BOARD CAN BE COMPOSED OF UP TO SEVEN MEMBERS, TWO MEMBERS SHOULD BE, UM, INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTING PEOPLE WITH THIS DIFFERENT , EVERYONE IS TO SERVE A TWO YEAR TERM WITH A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE. ALL MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL. QUORUM FOR OUR PANEL OF SEVEN MEANS WE NEED AT LEAST FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT AT ANNUAL WEEK TO CONDUCT OFFICIAL BUSINESS. WE ASK THAT OUR BOARD MEMBERS BRING THEIR EXPERTISE AND CONSTRUCTION ACCESSIBILITY AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND SPEAK A DIVERSITY PANEL TO ENSURE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF HOW OUR BUILDING CODE AND SAFETY MATTERS ARE BEING DEALT WITH THROUGHOUT THE CITY. OUR OPENINGS, OUR ORGANIZING STATUTE GIVE US BASICALLY THREE CATEGORIES OF ITEMS TO DEAL WITH. WE REVIEW THE BUILDING, OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION APPLICATION OF BUILDING AND HOUSING CODES TO ENSURE CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT. WE EVALUATE STRUCTURAL ORDERS REGARDING REPAIR [00:05:01] AND ABATE AND DEMOLISH ORDERS AND WE HEAR APPEALS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCLUDING CITATIONS AND NUISANCE DECLARATIONS, ENFORCEMENT OF GRAFFITI STATUTES, ABANDONED VEHICLES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA FOR OUR APPEALS PROCESS. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SURE. UM, MY ADMITTED AND VAGUE RECOLLECTION, THERE WAS SOMETHING IN ENABLING STATUTE THAT ALSO TALKED ABOUT APPROVING LIKE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS. I DON'T RECALL THAT OFF HAND. I DO KNOW THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS HAS, AND, AND WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH EACH MUNICIPAL CODE THAT RELATES TO YOUR AUTHORITY. I'M GENERALLY SPEAKING IN A SECOND. UM, AND IT MIGHT BE DISCUSSED THERE. WHAT'S COMING TO MY MIND AS WE'RE WORKING ON IT A LOT LATELY IS SECURING, UH, SUBSTANDARD PROPERTIES AND THERE ARE LIMITATIONS AS TO THE KIND OF MATERIALS THAT MAY BE USED TO DO THAT AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY APPROVE OTHER MATERIALS AND THAT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPEALED TO BE AT . YEAH, I I WOULD JUST COMMENT THAT THAT IS EXPLICITLY STATED IN I THINK THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS COMMISSION ON THE LIKE APPLICATION PAGE. SO MAYBE IF THAT'S NOT PART OF IT, WE SHOULD THE APPLICATION PAGE. YEAH. YEAH. GOOD NOTE. AND IT MAY BE SO WRITTEN FIELD OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES ARE TO BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION, LIKE A REQUIRED PAYMENT. THE SECRETARY WILL SCHEDULE THE HEARING WITH AT LEAST 10 DAYS NOTICE AND NOTIFY ALL CONCERNED PARTIES, ALL CONCERNED PARTIES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT WRITTEN MATERIALS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING DATE FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AND ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. OUR BOARD HERE CONDUCT A QUAI JUDICIAL HEARING AND EXAMINE THE WITNESSES UNDER OATH, REVIEWING EVIDENCE THAT SUBMITTED BOTH BY AN APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT. AND THEN WE ISSUE A FINAL DECISION. MY QUESTION? YES SIR. UH, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF AN INTERESTED PARTY? AND THAT BE JUST LITERALLY ANYONE WHO SAYS I'M INTERESTED IN THAT. IS IT ANYBODY WHO LIVES WITHIN A QUARTER MILE RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION OR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AND SUBMIT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION? WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING OF THE PARTIES, WE'RE SPEAKING OF THE PERSON THAT'S EITHER THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE OR IN THE CITATION IS BEING ISSUED. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MUNICIPAL CODE THAT DEALS WITH HEARINGS. GENERALLY. IT'S NOT PARTICULARIZED TO BE ACT THAT IS LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.93. IT TALKS ABOUT OUR WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH THAT WE ARE TO CONSIDER BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELY UPON RULES OF EVIDENCE AND DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS PRESENTED TO US. PARTIES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES AND WE HAVE THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO RECORD AND PUBLISH THE INFORMATION AND THAT THE BOARD REACHES. AND OUR GOAL HERE IS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND MAINTAINING EFFICIENT AND TRANSPARENT PROCEEDINGS AS IT RELATES TO FOLKS' IMPORTANT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CITY'S IMPORTANT EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY OF LIVING FOR ALL OF ITS VISITORS . SO RELATIVE TO THE EVIDENCE AND, AND HOW WE TREAT THAT, UH, OTHER BOARDS I KNOW HAVE A SIMILAR THING WHERE THEY, THEY'LL PAY A LITTLE BIT OF ATTENTION TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, BUT OKAY, I'M BY YOU. SO FOR EXAMPLE, A BE HEARING BOARD CAN LISTEN TO HEARSAY AND IS THAT THE SAME KIND OF SITUATION THAT WE HAVE OR THAT THEY'RE EXACTLY. SO IT'S GONNA BE A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE I THINK FOR THE BOARD THAT PEOPLE PRESENT HEARSAY INFORMATION OR WE'LL HAVE DOCUMENTS THAT AREN'T OFTEN THE STANDARD THAT WOULD GET THEM ADMITTED IN COURT. AND YOU'RE NOT BOUND TO THE SAME CRITERIA THAT A COURT WOULD BE USING IN ADMITTING OR REJECTING THAT EVIDENCE. BUT YOU MAY ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON HOW THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF EVIDENCE WOULD PLAY INTO SOMETHING AND YOU MAY CONSIDER SOMETHING MORE OR LESS CREDIBLE DEPENDING ON HOW IT WOULD, UM, BEAR OUT GIVEN IT WE'RE AN OFFICIAL JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, LIKE DOUBLE OR TRIPLE HEARSAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN WEIGH THAT VERSUS, YOU KNOW, AN ORDINARY KIND OF HEARSAY. AND THEN AT LEAST SO FAR WE HAVE NOT EVEN TAKEN THE STEP OF SAYING WE'RE ADMITTING SOME DOCUMENT INTO EVIDENCE OR NOT. AND YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT AT ANY POINT IN THE PROCEEDING. SO EVERYTHING THAT'S PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WILL BE A PART OF THE RECORD AND THEN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE REALLY PERTAIN TO HOW YOU ASSESS THE INFORMATION [00:10:01] THAT BECOMES A PART OF THE RECORD THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES. OKAY. SO YOU COULD CHOOSE TO TOTALLY DISREGARD SOME PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT'S PART OF THE RECORD BECAUSE YOU FIND IT NOT CREDIBLE GIVEN THAT IT'S AN UNAUTHENTICATED DOCUMENT THAT CONSTITUTES DOUBLE HEARSAY OR ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THANKS. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT AS WELL, WHICH IS, IS IT POSSIBLE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A DOCUMENT THAT IS POTENTIALLY HEARSAY OR SEEMS NOT LEGITIMATE, IS IT OKAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO GO ONLINE AND LOOK UP WHAT THEY CAN FIND OUT ABOUT SAID SITUATION? NO, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT DURING THE BROWN ACT PORTION OF OUR EXAMINATION. OUR, OUR TRAINING TODAY WHERE ALL OF THE INFORMATION HAS TO BE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD HAS TO BE MUTUALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE BOARD. IT HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC. SO, UM, A GREAT QUESTION, A FAIR QUESTION AND OUR TRANSPARENCY RULES. ALRIGHT, SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE WE HAVE A LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL CODES THAT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED OUR BOARD AS PART OF THE REGULATORY APPELLATE PROCESS. WE HAVE A ROLE IN SHORT TERM RENTALS IN WEED ABATEMENT AND GRAFFITI ABATEMENT AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE GENERALLY IN ABANDONED VEHICLES, IN UNSAFE BUILDINGS IN OUR BOARDED AND VACATED BUILDINGS. IN OUR PROACTIVE RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM AND IN EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REGULATION IS THE PROACTIVE RENTAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT. THANK YOU. UH, REGARDING THE RENTAL INSPECTION, IS THAT LIKE SECTION EIGHT RENTALS OR IS THERE ANOTHER INSPECTION PROCESS? SO WE HAVE IN LONG BEACH A PROACTIVE RENTAL INSPECTION PROGRAM AND IF I MISSTATE ANYTHING I'LL INVITE STAFF TO CORRECT ME. UH, BUT THE IDEA HERE IS THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH FOUR OR MORE UNITS THAT IS USED FOR RESIDENCY THE CITY ENDEAVORS TO CONDUCT A SELF-INITIATED INSPECTION ANNUALLY, WE ARE I THINK NOT ABLE TO DO THAT ON THAT TIMELINE WITH THE STAFFING AND NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT IS THE ENDEAVOR. AND UH, THE BOARD'S INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE IF A LANDOWNER CHALLENGED A, UH, VIOLATION IN, UM, IN NOTICED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO THAT PROGRAM. WOULD THAT ALSO APPLY FOR SECTION EIGHT PANEL INSPECTIONS? NO, IT DOES NOT. THOSE ARE FEDERALLY REGULATED INTEREST. THAT WOULD BE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING SERVICES, UM, BUREAU THAT HANDLES THOSE INSPECTIONS WITH THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE MENTIONED UNDER, UH, HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, SO THAT'S A SEPARATE PROGRAM, DIFFERENT ENTITY THAT DOES THOSE INSPECTION. RIGHT. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I'M A SECTION EIGHT LANDLORD CAN APPEAL SOMETHING TO THIS BOARD THAT THEY CAME UP WITH. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN APPEALS PROCESS AND IF THEY APPEALED SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IF THE LIKELIHOOD IS PROBABLE THAT IT WOULD COME THROUGH THIS BOARD, YES, BUT I DON'T, CAN'T GUARANTEE I WOULD HAVE TO GIVE YOU A FIRM OPINION. I WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THE FUNDING DOCUMENTS FROM HUD TO SEE WHAT THE CONTRACTS THERE SPECIFY AS FAR AS CHALLENGING DETERMINATIONS AS FAR AS THE HABITABILITY. UM, AND I DIDN'T DO THAT IN PREPARATION FOR THIS. SURE, OKAY. THANKS. AND I'M GONNA RAISE A QUESTION THAT YOU MIGHT DEFER TO THE BROWN ACT SECTION. UM, BUT IT'S KIND OF A, A BRETT A BROWN ACT EXAMPLE. I AM A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS, UM, PEOPLE WHO ARE LICENSED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS. IF HYPOTHETICALLY A CASE CAME BEFORE US REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL, AND AGAIN, I'LL SKETCH UP A HYPOTHETICAL, YOU COME BACK TO IT, I CAN IMAGINE A SITUATION IN WHICH IT INVOLVED A MEMBER OF THAT ORGANIZATION WHO I HAD AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP WITH AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THAT ORGANIZATION WHERE OUR ONLY NEXUS IS THAT WE'RE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION, BUT WE DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER. SO I WILL THROW OUT EITHER NOW OR THE BROWN ACT, WHICH OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, IN WHICH I WOULD NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF. GREAT QUESTION. GREAT QUESTION. AND UM, I WILL POND THAT WHILE WE WORKED OUR WAY TOWARDS THAT AREA OF THE BROWN ACT, I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. UH, RECENTLY WE WERE REVIEWING THE CASE FOR AN UNDEVELOPED, UH, LAW. UH, AND THAT'S, UH, COUNTY ORIGIN. UH, WHERE DOES THAT FALL UNDER THIS LIST HERE? SO IT'S A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, OUR VACANT LOT MONITORING PROGRAM, AND THAT WOULD BE THE BOARD AND VACATED BUILDINGS IS WHERE THAT WOULD FALL RIGHT NOW. BUT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REORGANIZING THE MUNICIPAL [00:15:01] CODE. THANK YOU. SO WHAT CAN'T BE VIEWED, WE CANNOT WAIVE CITY LAWS. AND THAT COMES UP SOMETIMES AND IT DID IN FACT, EVEN WITH THE VACANT PROPERTY, WE WERE LOOKING AT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENFORCE THE CITY LAW IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT. BUT REALLY WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHAT FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED, MAKE OBJECTIVE DETERMINATIONS, AND THE LAW APPLIES FROM THOSE DETERMINATIONS. UM, WE DO NOT ASSESS NEW CLAIMS. WE'RE AN APPELLATE BOARD, UM, AND WE'RE NOT A POLICY ADVISORY BOARD. THE SLIDE, THE SLIDE, THE UPPER LEFT CORNER SAYS WE APPLY EXISTING INCOMES IN CANADA, I'LL ALTER OR WAIVE MUNICIPAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS. THAT SEEMS KIND OF A POLICY COULD BE I'M AN INSPECTOR AND I LIKE WHAT YOU DID THERE, UH, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S ALLOWABLE TO CODE OR NOT. SO CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT'S MEANT BY POLICY REQUIREMENTS? A POLICY REQUIREMENT WOULD BE WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE. OKAY. BECAUSE THERE'S CODES AND THERE'S POLICIES IN THERE NORMALLY DIFFERENT YES. IN MY EXPERIENCE. SO MAYBE, YEAH, BUT YOU'RE NOT HERE TO REVIEW THE POLICIES. PERHAPS YOU'RE HERE TO APPLY THE MUNICIPAL CODE, USE THE CONDUCT OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. OKAY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN? THAT WE'RE HERE TO REVIEW THE CODE UNDER THE, THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE? I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW I SAID IT BEFORE, BUT I THINK THAT WAS SUBSTANTIVE. MAYBE THAT WAS THAT OR WE LIKE A GROUP OF CITIZENS THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REVIEW FROM AN OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW AND WE SORT OF, I GUESS RELY ON THAT, BUT WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BEST POSSIBLE, UH, I GUESS CAPACITY. YEAH. WE HAVE AS A, AS A CITIZEN, RIGHT? NOT AS A BUILDING OFFICIAL, YOU ARE NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. YOU'RE PEOPLE, YOU'RE A CITIZENS WITH TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE THAT RENDERS YOU VALUABLE ASSETS IN ASSESSING THE ACTIONS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AS IT RELATES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. YEAH, FOR FOR INSTANCE, LIKE IF WE WERE TO REVIEW A CASE AND WE FELT THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE DIDN'T REALLY APPLY TO THE SPECIFIC CASE, BUT FOR SOME REASON IT GOT CAUGHT IN THAT UNDER THAT MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION AS BEST TO OUR ABILITIES. BUT YOU KNOW, IT MAY NOT ALIGN WITH WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR, OR THE MUNICIPAL CODE OR COUNTY ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, SO HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THAT? SO ONE WAY TO THINK OF IT IS A LOT LIKE THE COURT PROCEEDING WHERE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE IN ONE PLACE OR ANOTHER. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PRESENT YOU WITH THE INFORMATION, A FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT LED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT NSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED AND YOU CONSIDER THE APPELLANT'S FACTUAL INFORMATION PROVIDED AS WELL. AND YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THERE IS OR IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION THERE. THANK YOU. I THINK RELATES TO THIS, IT GOES TO SOMETHING WE'VE DISCUSSED ON THE SIDE IN THE PAST, LOOKING BACK TO SCOPE OF JURISDICTION MM-HMM . UM, IT STATES THAT ONE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IS TO REVIEW INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF BUILDING HOUSING CODES TO ENSURE CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT. YES. UM, AS STAFF KNOWS, I'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS THAT I'VE RAISED NOT AS A COMMISSION MATTER ABOUT CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT WITH REGARD TO PR. AND I'M CURIOUS, WHAT IS THE LIMIT ON BEING ABLE TO RAISE THAT AS AN ISSUE REGARDING INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF BUILDING A HOUSING CODE? IT IS LIMITED TO THE PARTICULAR CASE THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND TO, TO ENSURE THAT THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IS NOT BEING INCONSISTENTLY IMPLIED IN THE CASES BEFORE THE BOARD. I SEE. SO HYPOTHETICALLY, I'M GONNA AGAIN TRY SOMETHING. IF THERE WERE A CASE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD THAT RELATED TO PR, WE WOULD BE ABLE, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, A LANDLORD SAYING THEY WERE UNFAIRLY TREATED OR A TENANT SAYING THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY INSPECTED, THOSE WOULD BE CASES ON WHICH WE WOULD RULE ON THE PARTICULAR CASE. IS THAT RIGHT? [00:20:03] SO IT'S GOING TO COME TO BAC WHEN THERE'S A CHALLENGE TO THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. SO I'M, THAT'S GOING TO BE AS FAR AS I CAN CONTEMPLATE RIGHT NOW, THE DETERMINATION BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THERE WAS SOME PROBLEM WITH THE PROPERTY MM-HMM . AND THE BUILDING OWNER WAS CITED OR INSTRUCTED TO REPAIR THAT. AND THEN CHALLENGES THAT DETERMINATION. IT WOULD BE FOR THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CONDITION CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW THAT LAW HAS BEEN APPLIED THROUGH THE ACT PREVIOUSLY. I SEE. SO A COMPLAINT FROM A TENANT THAT THERE WAS NOT ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT PROBABLY NOT HAVE A BASIS FOR COMING BEFORE THE BOARD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S COMING TO THE BOARD, BUT I, WE WANNA DOUBLE CHECK, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S A QUESTION. I SEE YOU ALSO SHAKING YOUR HEAD ON THAT . EVERYBODY'S SHAKING THEIR HEAD THOUGH. I, I I I SEE THE LOGIC OF IT. ALRIGHT, I HAVE A BRIEF QUESTION. WHAT IS P WRITE A TOUGH QUESTION. HUH? P RIP IS THE, UM, PROACTIVE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAM THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MOMENT AGO. OH, THANK YOU. PETER WORKING WITH OTHER STATE ENTITIES. UM, AND THIS IS JUST SORT OF HOW THE DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS OR DIFFERENT ENTITIES INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER. SO CITY COUNCIL CREATES THE MUNICIPAL CODE, MODIES MUNICIPAL CODE. OUR JOB IS TO ENSURE FAIR IMPLEMENTATION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THEIR TEAM OUT IN THE FIELD MAKING ASSESSMENTS. WE REVIEW THAT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY IS HERE TO PROVIDE LEGAL GUIDANCE AND CLARIFICATION AT YOUR REQUEST THAT WE SHOULD . UM, ARE, ARE DECISIONS APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL? NOT GENERALLY. I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK EVERY SECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT NORMALLY FOLLOWING THE BAC DETERMINATION IF THE PROPER APPELLATE PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO FILE A WRIT IN STATE COURT INCH. VERY HIGH BAR. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND THEN WE HAVE A LITTLE SUMMARY SLIDE AND THEN WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO PRESENTATION 2.0. I'D ACTUALLY ASK ONE MORE QUESTION. OF COURSE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CITY STAFF HAS DONE, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN HELPFUL FOR CITY STAFF AND IS PROVIDING USE USEFUL INPUT SOMETIMES FROM US SLIGHTLY OUT OF THE SCOPE OF OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS, IS ON OCCASION THERE HAVE BEEN PRESENTATIONS, BROADER PRESENTATIONS ABOUT, UM, HOUSING RELATED AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED CITY PROGRAMS. I ASSUME THAT WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF STAFF THERE IS NO OBSTACLE TO THEIR CONTINUING TO MAKE SUCH PRESENTATIONS. YES, THAT'S A BROAD STATEMENT, BUT THE BOARD WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE UPDATES FROM STAFF REGARDING ANY NUMBER OF PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES THAT RELATE TO YOUR ROLE AS AN ATORY BODY. GOOD. AND ONE OF THE REASONS I ASKED THAT, I ACTUALLY WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I'VE RAISED SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE JUST OUTSIDE THE SCOPE AND I DON'T WANT THE RESPONSES TO THOSE QUESTIONS TO PUT CITY STAFF IN A POSITION WHERE THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN'T MAKE THESE BROADER PRESENTATIONS ON WHICH WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE USEFUL AND INPUT IN A NON ADJUDICATORY WAY. YEP. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE PRESENTATION THAT'LL BE GIVEN WILL GENERALLY BE FOR YOUR ENRICHMENT, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE DIRECTION OF STAFF, BUT RIGHT. GOOD. ALRIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? YES SIR. UM, JUST ON THE, ON THE COMPOSITION, SO SEVEN MEMBERS INCLUDING TWO PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS QUALIFIED IN CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S TWO OF THE SEVEN NEED TO MEET THAT I THINK, OR THOSE ARE LIKE EXCLUSIVE, THERE'S SEVEN OF US, RIGHT? YES. SO I GUESS SHOULD THERE BE A COMMA THERE OR WHAT? UM, WHERE ARE WE HERE? WELL, IT'S ON THE FINAL SLIDE AND IT'S ALSO ON THE FIRST OR THE SECOND THIRD. BUT, UM, UM, I THINK THAT THE MOST RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AS I READ THE MEANINGFUL CODE FOR THE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY CONCERNS IS THEIR EXPERIENCE REGARDING ACCESS. IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THEM TO HAVE SOME KIND OF CONSTRUCTION OR PUBLIC WORKS BACKGROUND, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT FOR [00:25:01] THEM TO BRING THE TABLE FOR CONVERSATION IS ENSURING ACCESS FOR PEOPLE OF ALL ABILITIES TO, BECAUSE I MEAN, HAVING TWO PEOPLE WITH BOTH CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE AND A HANDICAP OR HOWEVER WE'RE GONNA CHARACTERIZE IT, MIGHT MAKE THE POOLED CANDIDATES VERY SMALL. YEAH. UM, OKAY. SO IT'S ONLY, IT'S NOT REALLY BOOKED. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER FIVE? I MEAN, I KNOW I WAS PICKED IN PART BECAUSE OF MY CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND, BUT IS EVERYBODY REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT? SO THE SELECTION PROCESS IS DONE BY THE MAYOR OFFICE? YEAH. UM, SO AS IT SAYS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND I SUPPOSE THIS IS SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, THE BOARD I'M GETTING THAT SHALL CONSIST OF SEVEN MEMBERS OF WHICH TWO MEMBERS SHALL BE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING TO PASS JUDGMENT ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. SO WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY'S QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE MEANS THAT THRESHOLD IS WHAT WE IN LAW WOULD CALL A POLITICAL DECISION, THAT AMENABLE AND A DETERMINATION OF THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. OKAY. THAT'S TALKING AT LEAST THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT TWO PEOPLE. YEAH, I AGREE. THEY TALK AT ALL ABOUT THE OTHER FIVE. INTERESTING. I WOULD SAY THE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE ANY KIND OF, UH, MOBILITY OR YOU KNOW, DISABILITY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE DISABILITY, UH, WITH THE DISABILITY ACT ACT, RIGHT. WELL, I MEAN THAT STATEMENT EVEN AS IT RELATED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, BUILDING INSTRUCTION CAN MEAN A MILLION DIFFERENT THINGS. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT PROBABLY MAKE SENSE THAT THE FOCUS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO HAVE GOOD ACCESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH YOU DON'T NEED TO BE IN CONTRACTOR TO . OKAY. I I, IT SOUNDS LIKE I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS THAT EXIST. YEAH. I'D ALSO SAY THAT ACCESS LOOKS DIFFERENT FOR ALL, ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. LIKE SOME PEOPLE NEED OH YEAH. A RAMP AND SOME PEOPLE NEED A HANDRAIL, YOU KNOW? YEAH. AND SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST OLD . AND I, I WOULD, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR REQUIREMENTS, I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF YOU GO TO THE, UH, LONG BEACH.GOV PAGE AND LOOK AT COMMISSIONS THERE, THERE IS A PRETTY GOOD DESCRIPTION AND EXPLAINS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA BE A COMMISSIONER, THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ASKED THAT MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE. HOWEVER, MY OTHER CONCERN BEING OLD IS THAT, UM, IF WE CAN KEEP THIS ON TASK AND LIMIT OUR QUESTIONS, WE COULD GET OUT OF HERE BEFORE DARK. ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO PART TWO. WE HAVE NO ON THE SCREEN. THAT'S FANTASTIC. WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE BROWN ACT FIRST, THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT ROBERT'S RULES, AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT HOW THEY INTERACT AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT CHALLENGES. ALL OF THIS PRESENTED TO US AS A BOARD. AND THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU CAN DO TO ADDRESS THOSE CHALLENGES. SO THE WHOLE PACKAGE, SO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY. IT'S ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S TWO PRIMARY SUNSHINE LAWS, PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY LAWS, THE OTHER BEING THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THEY COVER DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS. WE AT BAC ARE AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC BOARD THAT CONDUCT OFFICIAL HEARING AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BROWN ACT. THE CORE PURPOSE OF THE BROWN ACT IS TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE'S BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED TRANSPARENTLY AND OPENLY. THE BROWN ACT APPLIES TO ALL MEETINGS, WHICH MUST REQUIRE A HORN TO BE STARTED AND OFFICIAL, AND IT APPLIES REGARDLESS WHETHER MEETINGS ARE IN PERSON OR ELECTRONIC OR CONDUCTED LOCATIONS NOTICE AGENDA AND OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS. SO FOR ALL MEETINGS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO BROWN ACT, REGULAR MEETING AGENDA MUST BE POSTED IN A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PLACE, AND THEY GENERALLY ONLINE AT LEAST SEVEN TWO HOURS BEFORE THE HEARING, AND IT MUST PROVIDE AN ACCURATE AND REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECTS CONVERSATION. [00:30:01] PUBLIC ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO ATTEND THE MEETING AND COMMENT DURING PERIODS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OCCASIONALLY, AS IS THIS MEETING, THERE IS A SPECIAL MEETING. THOSE ONLY REQUIRE 24 HOURS NOTICE. THOSE ARE GENERALLY FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. I DON'T ANTICIPATE US HAVING TO RESPOND TO MANY OF THOSE. WE DID POST OUR SPECIAL AGENDA 72 HOURS AHEAD OF TIME, AS WILL BE OUR POLICY AT LEAST TIME WHEREVER POSSIBLE. AND WE'RE HOLDING THIS MEETING FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF OFFERING SOME INFORMATION WOULDN'T TAKE AWAY FROM TIME AND A HALF TO BE CLEARANCE. SO WHAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE BROWN ACT? WE'RE OFTEN WORRIED ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS AMONG BOARD MEMBERS. LOTS OF THINGS CAN BE CONSTRUED AS THE BOARD MEMBERS CONSIDERING INFORMATION WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. SO ANY CONVERSATION OR DISCUSSION OF INFORMATION WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION NEEDS TO BE DONE DURING A PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND AGENDIZED AND ADVERTISED. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE COMMON KINDS OF WAYS THAT BOARDS RUN INTO BROWN ACT. PROBLEMS. FIRST WOULD BE LIKE ONE-ON-ONE DISCUSSION, THREE WAY THROUGH STAFF OR INTERMEDIARIES AND TELE CONVERSATION HAS REACHED A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. WE HAVE HUB AND SPOKE WHERE ONE BOARD MEMBER MAY REACH OUT AND HAVE A NUMBER OF ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE. THAT'S ALSO A BROWN ACT VIOLATION. WE HAVE DAISY CHAIN COMMUNICATIONS WHERE ONE BOARD MEMBER SPEAKS TO BOARD MEMBER B. BOARD MEMBER B SPEAKS TO BOARD MEMBER C, BOARD MEMBER C SPEAKS TO BOARD MEMBER D. WE'VE NOW HIT QUORUM AND NOW HAVE VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT. DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS OFFER NEW COMPLEXITIES AROUND BROWN ACT COMPLIANCE. SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO IMPLICATE THE BROWN ACT, WHERE BOARD MEMBERS, UH, COMMENT, EXPLORE, REACT TO SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS THAT PERTAIN TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION. GENERALLY, THE BEST LEGAL ADVICE IS TO REFRAIN FROM USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO COMMENT ON OR DISCUSS IN ACTING INFORMATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION REPORT. ALL OF THESE VIOLATIONS CAN OCCUR BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF A BOARD MEMBER. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE BOARD MEMBER THEMSELVES. SO IF NOT A DEFENSE TO THE BROWN ACT, TO ASK YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF OR FRIEND OR ASSISTANT TO GO AND CONDUCT THESE CONVERSATIONS ON YOUR BEHALF. ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE SOCIAL MEDIA. SURE. THAT SOCIAL MEDIA ASPECT OF THAT. UM, SO CERTAINLY IT IS THE CASE THAT I'M THINKING MOSTLY OF ELECTEDS HERE, THAT ELECTEDS WILL POST ON SOCIAL MEDIA VIEWS ABOUT THINGS THAT HAPPEN, LET'S SAY IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. DOES THE ISSUE OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATION BAR, JUST HYPOTHETICALLY, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ON THEIR FACEBOOK, WE JUST DID SOMETHING WONDERFUL IN THE, UM, EAC OR I'M PART OF EAC AND I DISAGREE WITH THIS TERRIBLE THING WE JUST DID, I DON'T SEE A SITUATION WHICH THAT IS GONNA HAPPEN. BUT IT'S A GOOD WAY TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHAT, IF ANYTHING WE CAN SAY ABOUT OUR BEAC MEMBERSHIP IN SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT SOME MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT. SO AGAIN, MY, MY LEGAL ADVICE AND COUNSEL FOR BAC WOULD BE TO NOT AND JUST REFRAIN FROM DOING THAT. IF THERE WERE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE OR SITUATION, I APOLOGIZE, . UM, IF THERE WERE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE, I WOULD ASK YOU TO REACH OUT TO COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE PARTICULARS OF THAT INCIDENT. SO WHAT, WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT WE SHOULD TREAT WHAT HAPPENS IN BEAC IS SOMETHING WHICH IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLY THROUGH PUBLIC POSTINGS OF AGENDA. IS THAT RIGHT? TO HANDLE IT? THE, THE WAY I CAN SAY IT TO BE TRUE AND ACCURATE ON THE LAW IS WE WANT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OUR OFFICIAL DEALINGS TO BE PROPERLY NOTICED, PARTICULARLY WHERE A QUORUM IS POTENTIALLY OR ACTUALLY INVOLVED AND HAVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ON NOTICE OF THAT SO THAT THEY MAY PARTICIPATE IF THEY SEARCH. AND SO OPENING IT UP TO SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS CREATES COMPLEXITIES. SOME OF THEM MAY BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE BROWN ACT, SOME OF THEM MAY NOT BE, IT WOULD BE A VERY FACT SPECIFIC INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER I COULD ADVISE THAT IT WOULD BE A SAFE THING TO DO IN A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. AND AGAIN, TRYING ONE OTHER HYPOTHETICAL, SOMETHING I I HAVE TO SAY I WOULD NOT DO BECAUSE I THINK IT RAISES THE QUESTION OF DAISY SHANER HUB AND SPOKE, BUT HYPOTHETICALLY, SINCE A QUORUM IS FOUR, THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION COULD SIT DOWN AND HAVE A PRIVATE CONVERSATION [00:35:02] ABOUT COMMISSION ACTIVITY WITH THE KIND OF VERY EXPLICIT AGREEMENT THAT IT GOES NO FURTHER, THREE MEMBERS DISCUSSING BUSINESS WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT. YEAH, I'LL, I'LL SPECIFY THAT. IT WOULD BE A REALLY BAD IDEA GETTING VERY CLOSE. YES, EXACTLY. I NOT, I NOT RECOMMENDING THAT ANY THREE OF US SIT DOWN AND DO THAT CREATES OBVIOUS RISK. SO THE NEXT THING THEN IS WHAT MAY WE DO? AND THIS ISN'T THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HANG OUT WITH EACH OTHER OR ATTEND EVENTS TOGETHER. COURSE YOU CAN GO TO BIRTHDAY PARTIES AND OTHER PUBLIC EVENTS, UM, BUT AT SUCH MEETINGS AND EVENTS, IT, UH, WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS OFFICIAL BUSINESS . SO OTHER PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS IN THE WAY WE CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS ARE AVOIDING BIAS. WE WANNA AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS OR PROPRIETY IN ALL OF OUR OFFICIAL APPEALS. UM, THAT INCLUDES NOT JUST THE HEARINGS, BUT THE MANNERS OF COMMUNICATION WITH OUR PATROL BOARD MEMBERS. IF THERE HAVE BEEN EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS THAT DON'T VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT, THAT INFORMED THE BOARD MEMBERS' OPINION ABOUT A CASE OR AN ACTION, THE BEST COURSE WILL BE TO DISCLOSE THAT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THE PUBLIC HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THAT. AND SO THAT THAT CONVERSATION, TO THE EXTENT IT INFLUENCED THE DECISION THAT THE BOARD IS REACHING, IS SUBJECT TO BROWN ACT AND PUBLICLY, WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING EVIDENCE-BASED DECISIONS AND THAT ALL OF OUR DETERMINATIONS ARE BASED ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF US AND NOT ANY BIAS VIOLATION. QUICK ON, ON THIS HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WHERE THE THREE FOLKS AT THE MET AND DISCUSSED BUSINESS, IF THEY DID DO THAT, IT'S ALLOWED, BUT THEN THEY NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT THEY DID IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. I WOULD SAY CERTAINLY IF IT, IF THE CONVERSATION INFORMED ANYBODY'S DECISION MAKING ABOUT THAT EVENT, IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED GOING TOWARD, IF IT WAS TANGENTIAL AND IT DIDN'T CHANGE ANYBODY'S MIND OR DISCUSS ANYTHING PARTICULAR TO THE CASE, UM, IN A MANNER THAT BORE ON THE DECISION, IT MAY NOT BE THANKS. VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT, CIVIL REMEDIES INCLUDE A COURT ORDER RESCINDING THE ACTION OF THE BOARD, UH, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. THAT IS PART OF THE INVALIDATION AS WELL. AND THEN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AS WELL FOR KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT. I DON'T MEAN TO TERRIFY OUR BOARD MEMBERS. THAT IS A PRETTY EXTREME AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE. I AM CONFIDENT THAT NO ONE ON THE BOARD HERE IS INTENTIONALLY GOING TO BE ANYTHING TO VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT, BUT IT DOES FRAME, EXCUSE ME, THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THESE RULES. ALL RIGHT. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. WHAT, WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS LIKE HYPOTHETICAL , THE HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT WHETHER YOU NEED REVIEW THE MEMBER OF A BODY, ONE OF WHOSE MEMBERS IS COMING TO REPORT SUBMISSION. YEAH. AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ACCUSED AS A DECISION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER HAS TO MAKE MY COUNSEL WOULD BE THAT IN THE INSTANCE WHERE YOU HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE OF THE PARTIES, THERE IS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. AND IT'S LEGALLY ADVISABLE FOR YOU TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THAT ACTION. WHERE THERE IS A LESS, THERE'S, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I'M GONNA LAWYER IT. I'M NOT GONNA GIVE YOU A BIG BOLD BLACK LINE ANSWER TO ANY OF IT. UM, YOU HAVE, YOU THEN HAVE A GRADIENT OF HOW THE PERCEPTION OF IMPROPRIETY OR ACTUAL IMPROPRIETY MAY BE. I TRUST THAT EVERYONE ON THE BOARD IS EX ABLE TO EXERCISE INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE AND FAIR AND NON-BIASED DECISION MAKING. EVEN IF A CASE STATE INVOLVE A FRIEND OR A COLLEAGUE OR A BUSINESS PERSON, BUT TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, WE, YOU WOULD BE ASKED TO REC ACCUSE YOURSELF OR ENCOURAGED TO REPEAT YOURSELF FROM THOSE SITUATIONS IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE MEMBERS OF A PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY. I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ENGAGED IN POLITICAL OR LOBBYING ACTIVITY. I DON'T KNOW. UM, THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS, I DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE INTERESTS THAT THEY PURSUE. UM, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN SUCH A CASE. UM, THOSE CONCERNS WOULD BE HIGHER IF THERE'S 50 MEMBERS. THEY WOULD BE LOWER IF THERE WERE 500,000 MEMBERS. UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S GONNA BE A GRADIENT. AND SO IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN LIKE THAT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROACH ME, UM, BEFORE, ONCE THE AGENDA IS POSTED AND, AND ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL YOU SHOULD REPEAT YOURSELF FOR. YEAH. SO WHAT I WOULD DO IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, I'M JUST [00:40:01] THROWING IT OUT, IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. UM, IF SOMETHING CAME REGARDING A SHORT TERM RENTAL BY THE ONE PERSON WHO I REGULARLY DISCUSS BUSINESS WITH FROM THAT ASSOCIATION, I WOULD SIMPLY SAY I'M RECUSING MYSELF. YOU WOULD WANT, WE, YOU'RE ASKED TO ENCOURAGE NOT DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE QUITE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO, BUT IT'S THE EXPECTATION CERTAINLY TO PROVIDE A BASIS OR THE RECUSAL, AND IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DETAILED, CAN SIMPLY BE, I HAVE A OUTSIDE RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL. AND SO TO PRESERVE THE APPEARANCES OF PROPRIETY, I'M RECUSING MYSELF. AND IF THERE WERE, I, I JUST WOULD SORT OF THROW THIS OUT. IF THERE WERE A CASE THAT INVOLVED SHORT TERM RENTALS WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SENT OUT TO US IN ADVANCE CAME VERY CLOSE TO ISSUES THAT MIGHT AFFECT ME UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, I WOULD CONSULT YOU. I THINK THAT SOUNDS WISE, YES. OKAY. OKAY. ROBERT'S RULES. ROBERT'S RULES, UM, IS VERY OLD, BUT REGULARLY UPDATED PROCESS FOR DELIBERATIVE, UH, AND PARLIAMENTARY BODIES. EVERYTHING FROM CORPORATE BOARDS TO GOVERNMENTAL ES FROM OUR MUNICIPAL CODE, WE ARE INSTRUCTED AS SUPPORTIVE EXAMINERS, APPEALS AND CONDEMNATIONS SHALL ADOPT REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONDUCTING IT INVESTIGATIONS IN HEARINGS. AND WE'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE BY SUCH RULES. ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER SHALL GOVERN MORE ON THIS IN A MOMENT, BUT TO WIT, THERE ARE NO REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD. SO RECONCILING A COUPLE OF OUR DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES HERE, THE BROWN ACT MUNICIPAL CODE ARE LAW INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS ARE LAW. THOSE PRECEDE ANY S RULES OR BOARD RULE OF PROCESS AND MUST BE ACCOMMODATED BY ANY ROBERT'S RULE OR BOARD'S RULE OF PROCESS WHERE OUR RULES OF PROCESS, EITHER OUR OWN OR ROBERT'S RULES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE BROWN ACTS OR SOMEBODY'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OR THE MUNICIPAL CODE. OUR PROCEDURAL RULE IS UNENFORCEABLE AND MUST BE VACATED. AT THE MOMENT WE ARE IN THE DEFAULT MODE WITH ROBERT'S RULES. SO HOW DO WE START ITEMS? SOMEBODY FIRST MUST MAKE A MOTION, SOMEBODY THEN MUST SECOND THE MOTION. THE CHAIR THEN STATES THE QUESTION AND THEN THE DISCUSSION BEGINS. DOES HE PROVIDE FOUR IN CHAPTER FOUR ROBERT'S SCHOOL? WE, I THINK I SENT YOU SOMETHING ON THIS THAT IS CONTRADICTED BY THE CITY'S OWN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER TRAINING, WHICH I JUST TOOK, TOOK A FEW WEEKS BACK. OH, EXCELLENT. DO YOU KNOW WHO PRESENTED THAT? IT'S FOR THESE ONLINE TRAINING THINGS. OKAY, SO I, I HAVE A SCREENSHOT OF THE SLIDING QUESTION, BUT PLEASE SHARE IT. UM, I JUST COME AROUND. YEAH, IT'S JUST THE ONE SLIDE I CALL. SO THE PRESENTATION ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN COMMISSIONER MEETS THE MOTION AND ANOTHER SECOND MOTION AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT. SO SOMETHING, YEAH. SO BEFORE THERE'S A DISCUSSION AND A DIALOGUE FROM THIS BODY, WE DO NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. WE CAN GET A MOTION AND SECOND BEFORE STAFF'S PRESENTATION. BUT THE MAIN REQUIREMENT IS BEFORE YOU START DISCUSSING THE ITEM, THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE ARE ALL IN AGREEANCE OR THERE'S AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE AGREEING TO HEAR THIS ITEM. AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF A MOTION. AND A SECOND, WELL, YOU CAN HEAR STAFF PRESENTATION AND THEY GET A MOTION AND SECOND, AND THEN HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION AMONGST YOURSELVES OR YOU CAN GET A MOTION. SECOND STAFF GIVES THEIR PRESENTATION AND NOW YOU'RE GOOD TO HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION THROUGHOUT THEIR PRESENTATION AS WELL. OKAY. BUT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING LATELY IS THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND TO OPEN THE HEARING. THEN WE HEAR FROM STAFF THAT'S NOT ALWAYS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE MEETING MINUTES, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. UM, AND THEN WE MAKE A MOTION AFTER WE HEAR FROM STAFF ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EITHER TO SUPPORT THAT OR NOT. AND YEAH, SO ASSUME THAT WORKS, AT LEAST FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE AGENDA IS THE RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TO CONSIDER, RIGHT? THAT IS CONSIDERED THE MOTION. AND SO YOU HAVE THAT STAFF DID ALL THE WORK, THEY PRESENTED YOU A MOTION. [00:45:01] NOW YOU CAN GET A MOTION AND A SECOND TO HAVE THE WHOLE DISCUSSION TO HEAR THE ITEM. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR DISCUSSION, VOTE NO. OR YOU CAN WITHDRAW THE ITEM OR YOU COULD LAY THE ITEM OVER TO THE NEXT MEETING. YOU HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS. YOU CAN MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT YOU ARE NOW CHANGING THE MOTION FROM THAT ORIGINAL MOTION. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT MOTIONS. IF YOU WANT TO JUST SAY, WE WANNA JUST HEAR THE ITEM, NOW YOU'VE TAKEN ALL THE ACTION OF THE BODY OFF THE TABLE. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO STICK WITH STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION TO HEAR AND SECOND. AND THEN AT THE END YOU CAN GO YES OR NO, OR YOU CAN MAKE A SLIGHT CHANGE, WHICH THEY CALL A FRIENDLY. BUT IF THAT MOTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO HEAR THE ITEM AND THEN YOU MAKE A SECOND MOTION AT THE END AND THAT ONE FAILS, THAT'S WHEN YOU SHOULD BE GOING TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH WAS JUST TO HEAR THE ITEM. SO NOW IT'S DEAD. SO THERE ARE PROCEDURAL RULES AND REASONS WHY THESE BODIES DO MAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND. YOU GUYS DO THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. I AGREE. UM, BUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IS YOU'RE GETTING MOTION FOR A SECOND, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE SET IN STONE AND THAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE. YES. YOU'RE JUST HEARING IT. WELL, AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I'VE BEEN ON BIT OF A TEAR ON THIS ISSUE SINCE I STARTED IS THAT UNLIKE SOME OTHER COMMISSIONS AND BODIES IN THE CITY MM-HMM . WE ARE HERE ESSENTIALLY IN MOST CASES TO ARBITRATE BETWEEN THE CITY STAFF'S POSITION AND SOME HOME HOMEOWNER OR PHYSICIAN. AND IF I AM THE HOMEOWNER AND I SHOW UP HERE AND THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENS IS ONE OF US MAKES A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE STAFF POSITION, I WOULD FEEL LIKE THAT'S BEEN SLAPPED IN THE FACE. LOOK, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD FROM ME YET. AND YOU'RE VOTING FOR THOSE FACTS. AND MR. HOWARD, IF I CAN INTERRUPT FOR A MINUTE, I, I AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION AND I THINK THE PROBLEM IS ESSENTIALLY SOLVED WHEN WE HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THE ITEM. NOT THAT WE RIGHT. I THOUGHT I HEARD HER. I'LL TELL YOU WITH THAT. LET ME, LET ME FINISH ONE OTHER THING AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE VERY KIND AND GIVE ME A SCRIPT. MM-HMM AND IN THE SCRIPT, IT HAS NOW CHANGED IN TERMS OF THE SCRIPT IS FOR FOLLOWING ROBERT'S RULES AND IT HAS NOW CHANGED FROM, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR. AND I THINK IF WE SAY THAT, THEN WE'RE FINE. AND AS A HOMEOWNER, ANYONE ELSE, I THINK PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER IT. YEAH. FAIR. THAT WORKS FOR ME. THANK YOU. AND IT'S NOT SET IN STONE, YOU KNOW, UM, AND YOU COULD LET STAFF PRESENT AND THEN AFTER THEY'RE DONE AND YOU KNOW, I'M ASKING QUESTIONS DURING THE PRESENTATION AFTER THEY'RE DONE, YOU COULD GET A MOTION AND SECOND AND THEN AT THAT POINT SAY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR CHANGE THEN. SO YOU DO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. YOU CAN LISTEN TO STAFF OR YOU CAN JUST SAY, WE WANT TO HEAR IT, WHICH IS FINE. UM, BUT JUST KNOW THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS WHAT A STAFF IS GIVING YOU ON THE AGENDA AS THE RECOMMENDATION. YEAH. AND THAT'S TOTALLY UNDER, THAT'S TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING. IF THEY WEREN'T RECOMMENDING IT, WE WOULDN'T BE. YOU WOULDN'T BE. YEAH. UM, SO I MEAN A PROCESS WHERE WE OPEN THE HEARING, WE GET THE STAFF PRESENTATION, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THEN WE MAKE A MOTION. NOW, I WOULD ALSO, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD, WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, WHERE THERE WAS THE OTHER PARTY WAS HERE AND WANTING TO TALK. I ASSUME WE WOULD LISTEN TO THEM EVEN BEFORE WE WOULD MAKE THAT SECOND MOTION. SO LET'S CONTINUE THE TRAINING BECAUSE UM, I DID ANTICIPATE THIS. OKAY. AND APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S GOOD COMMUNICATION. AND TO ME IT'S A MATTER OF APPEARANCE OF PROPRIETY, YOU KNOW, PROPRIETY AND I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY. AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO WORK TOWARDS THIS SOLUTION THAT WORKS RECORD KEEPING WISE, UM, JUST TO LIKE, TO PLANT SOME SEEDS FOR THAT CONVERSATION. ONE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE A MOTION TO START THE HEARING OR TO BEGIN THE HEARING IS THAT WE THEN NEED TO DO A FULL VOTE ON THAT MOTION AND THEN WE NEED A NEW MOTION FOR A DECISION ON THE HEARING. AND SO IT JUST CREATES SOME POLITICAL, I MEAN PROCEDURAL AWKWARDNESS THAT I THINK IF WE'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT A BETTER PROCEDURE, THERE ARE WAYS TO IMPLEMENT BETTER PROCEDURES THAT AVOID THAT PROCEDURAL AWKWARDNESS AS WELL. BUT LET US CONTINUE NOW THAT I HAVE YOUR CURIOSITIES. P ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS THE PROCEDURE. IT'S CALLED FORTH AND ROBERT'S RULES, NOT WITHSTANDING [00:50:01] THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT WE MAY SEE IN DIFFERENT OTHER PRESENTATIONS. I DID TRIPLE CHECK THIS, UH, FOR THIS SO THAT I COULD BE SPEAKING FROM THAT POSITION OF KNOWLEDGE ON. UM, NEXT SLIDE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MOTIONS, THANK CLERK'S OFFICE FOR ALREADY MORE OR LESS TOUCHING THIS. WE HAVE THE MAIN MOTION. WE CAN DO AN AMENDMENT TO A MOTION AND WE CAN DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. AN AMENDMENT IS GENERALLY CHANGING A SIGNIFICANT BUT NOT CENTRAL PART OF THE MOTION. A SUBSTITUTE MOTION MAY BE REVERSING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE CONFLICT OF THIS BOARD. THERE'S ANOTHER KIND THAT'S NOT ON HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT OFFICIAL IN ROBERT'S RULES, BUT IT IS A RECOGNIZED, UH, WIDELY RECOGNIZED MODE OF MOTION. AND THAT IS A FRIENDLY, AND THAT WOULD BE IF THERE WERE LIKE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR OR SOMETHING MORE PHRASE ODDLY, OR WE NEEDED TO JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING MINOR THAT DIDN'T AFFECT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MOTION OR ITS PURPOSES, WE WOULD DO THAT AS A FRIENDLY MOTION. AND FOR THE FRIENDLY MOTION TO WORK, WE OFFER IT AT THE TIME THE MOTION IS MADE AND THEN WE ASK THE PERSON MAKING THE MOTION TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE FRIENDLY MODIFICATION THERE ORIGINATING MOTION. AND WE TREAT THAT AS THE ORIGINAL MOTION INSTEAD OF, UH, DOING A MORE FORMAL AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR, AND THAT TRACKS WITH HOW WE BACKTRACK THROUGH MOTIONS THAT FAIL UNDER ROBERT'S RULES. SO THAT'S WHY WE, WE HAVE THIS HERE. IT DOES GET COMPLICATED. OUR CHAIR'S DUTIES, WHICH I THINK THEY DO ADMIRABLY, IS TO RECOGNIZE MEMBERS BEFORE THEY SPEAK, ENSURE DISCUSSION REMAINS WITHIN THE AGENDA ITEM WITH MOTION CLEARLY FOR THE DISCUSSION CALLS FOR THOSE VOTES AND MAINTAINS THE QUORUM AND FAIRNESS FOR ALL PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING. SO OUR AGENDAS, ROBERTS RULES HAS A SET OF RULES ABOUT AGENDAS, BUT OUR AGENDAS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE BROWN ACT IS A MORE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR US ON THEM. THEY, WE CAN ONLY DISCUSS THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN FAIRLY AGENDIZED AND NOTICE 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF OUR MEETINGS. SO WE DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT NON-PUBLIC BOARDS HAVE TO EVEN AMEND MOTIONS OR CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES THAT AREN'T ON THE AGENDA TO THE POINT WHERE DEVIATE SO SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD THAT THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE. AND IT'S A SUBJECTIVE CALL, BUT WHERE THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE, UM, EXPRESSED MORE INTEREST IN ATTENDING THE MATTER HAD TO PHRASED THE WAY THAT IS NOW BEING DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD. IN THOSE CASES, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO EITHER TABLE AN ACTION OR RULE DECIDE THE MOTION BEFORE US AND IZE A MOTION THAT'S MORE SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA BEFORE. AND WHEN, I GUESS FOR QUESTION ON THAT, I ASSUME THAT INCLUDED IS ALWAYS THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION CAN BE EITHER APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED AND EITHER OF THOSE IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NOTES. AND I THINK THERE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE BROWN ACT. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ADDS A SUBJECTIVE DECISION THAT'S WANTED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD MAKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT WHETHER WE DEVIATED SO FAR FROM THE ORIGINAL MOTION NOW THAT IN OUR OPINION IT WARRANTS ITS OWN PUBLIC NOTICE SO THAT FOLKS OF A, OF A PARTICULAR INTEREST, MAYBE PEOPLE IN COMMERCIAL STATEMENT FOR THIS GROUP, LIKE IF IT AFFECTED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THE WAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT IS GONNA ELICIT INTEREST FROM GROUPS THAT MAY NOT HAVE HAD THAT NOTICE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY AGENDIZED. WE'RE GONNA KICK IT OVER AND HAVE IT COME BACK. WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE TRY NOT TO DO THAT. WE TRY TO KEEP EVERYTHING ON THE REAL MOVING FORWARD AND GETTING THROUGH AGENDAS AND TAKING ON NEW CHALLENGES EVERY MONTH. UM, SOMETIMES IT'S NECESSARY. SO CHALLENGES IN OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS AS IT RELATES TO ROBERT'S RULES, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SORT OF STARTED TALKING ABOUT. SO FROM OUR POSITION AS QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICERS, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT APPEARS OBJECTIVE AND FAIR AND NEUTRAL AS PARTICULARLY AT THE OFFSET. AND THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE RAISED THE CONCERNS ABOUT MOTIONS PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE THAT SUGGEST A FAVOR TOWARDS ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. UM, THE REASON THAT THE RULES ARE WRITTEN LIKE THAT AS THE, THE, THE AGENDA ITEMS ARE WRITTEN LIKE THAT AS OUR PROCESS IS NOW, IS THAT IT NEEDS FOR A CLEAR RECORD WHEN THE DECISION IS MADE. SO WHEN WE'RE VOTING YAY OR NAY BASED ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WAS MADE, IT NEEDS TO BE TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPELLATE ACTION. AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S PHRASED AS GIVING THE CAKE TO ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER SO THAT IF IT, AND ALSO SO THAT IF THERE'S NOT A MAJORITY VOTE, THE OFFICIAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OF OFFICIAL STANCE. SO WITH THE DEFAULT ROBERTS RULES PROCESSES, THERE'S A LOT OF INCENTIVE FOR BODIES LIKE OURS TO WRITE THEIR AGENDA ITEMS IN A WAY THAT THAT APPEARS BIAS BECAUSE IT LEADS TO THE CLEANEST VOTING AND RECORD OUTCOME AT THE [00:55:01] END OF THE DAY. IT IS WORTH NOTING, BUT I'M GONNA SAY THIS BEFORE I TURN ONTO THE NEXT PAGE THAT PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT IF I'M A HOMEOWNER AND I WALK IN HERE AND THE FIRST THING I HEAR IS THAT A MOTION IS AGAINST ME, I'M GONNA BE OFFENDED. BUT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE THAT THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THE BOARD HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW INFORMATION FROM THE HOMEOWNER. ALL PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CASE AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPELLANTS ARE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY WHEN IN FACT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION STATING BASIS FOR THEIR APPEAL. SO THE BOARD, WHILE THE EVIDENCE DEFINITELY REMAINS OPEN AND WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OPEN MINDS UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE, WE DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM ALL PARTIES AT LEAST TO PRELIMINARILY BEGIN THE CONVERSATION. YES MA'AM. THAT FEELS EVEN WORSE IF THEY ALREADY SUBMITTED THEIR EVIDENCE AND WE'RE STILL MAKING A MOTION TO DENY THEM IMMEDIATELY. UM, I ACTUALLY WONDER IF WE COULD REVERSE THE, THE WHATEVER WORDING BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TELL OUR BUILDING AND BUILDING INSPECTORS, HEY PLEASE DON'T BE OFFENDED ABOUT THIS. THIS IS JUST FOR C CLERICAL THINGS THAN IT IS TO TELL EVERY SINGLE HOMEOWNER WHO LETS UP IN HERE JUST ONCE. SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME REASONS TO PHRASE THE AGENDA ITEM AS IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY THEN TOPA, UM, AND THEN FAILING THE MAJORITY. THE WAY THE ITEM IS PHRASED THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL STANDS, I THINK THAT IT GETS CONVOLUTED WHEN WE HAVE IT THE OTHER WAY. THAT SAID, THERE ARE MANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT LEND FOR CLARITY OF RECORD THE OTHER WAY. SO IF YOU WILL, I'LL HAVE A GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND I WILL NOTE THAT THE FIRST THING THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE SAYS FOR US AND DISCUSSES OUR HEARING PROCEDURES IS THAT WE MAY ADOPT AND ACT ACTUALLY IT SAYS WE SHALL ADOPT OUR OWN PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING OUR INVESTIGATIONS AND OUR HEARINGS. AND SO THE CLERK TEAM, THE STAFF TEAM AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S TEAM ARE ALREADY WORKING ON PROCESSES TO PRESENT YOU THAT WOULD REMEDY MANY OF THE CONCERNS. HOPEFULLY ALL OF THE CONCERNS, BUT I DON'T IMAGINE WE'LL GET ALL OF THEM UNLESS WE'VE HAD A MORE OPEN CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT ALL OF THEM. CERTAINLY THE ONES WE'RE AWARE OF WHILE BALANCING THESE OTHER INTERESTS, ENSURING THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR JUDICIALLY DEFENSIBLE RECORD ONCE WE'VE RENDERED THE DECISION. AND THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT'S PRESSURING AGAINST CHANGE IN THESE CONTEXTS IS THAT WE HAVE CASE LAW AND HISTORY AND PRECEDENT THAT THE PROCESS HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE JUDICIALLY SUFFICIENT. AND SO ANY KIND OF CHANGES ARE ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, WELL THEY CHANGED THE PROCESS BUT THE COURT IS APPROVED OF BEFORE AND SO NOW IT'S NOT GUARANTEED TO HAVE THAT RUBBER STAMP ANYMORE. THAT SAID, NO ONE IN THIS ROOM IS AFRAID OF THAT AND WE'RE GONNA LIVE FOR BETTER AND SAFER AND FAIRER WAYS TO DO ALL OF THIS WHILE MAINTAINING ALL OF THOSE INTERESTS. AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY WAYS TO DO THIS AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY WAYS OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE DOING THIS AND SO THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN MOVE THE BALL FORWARD HERE FOR CLARITY. SO KEEPING IN MIND SOME OF THESE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS HERE, WE HAVE TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND WHILE WE'RE CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF A CASE. WE WANT OUR PROCESS TO REFLECT THAT WE HAVEN'T REACHED A DECISION UNTIL A CASE IS CONCLUDED. WE NEED THE PROCEDURAL CLARITY AS TO HOW MOTIONS ARE TO RESOLVE. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE WAY WE FRAME THESE MOTIONS, THAT THE BUILDING OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION STANDS IN THE ABSENCE THAT AN APPEAL IS OFFICIALLY APPROVED. IF THAT IS AN UNDERLYING DECISION THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO, TO RULE ABSENT AND REVERSAL. UM, AND SO WE ARE IN PROCESS, IT'S ABOUT FOUR PAGES LONG. ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE LOOKING AT IT ACTIVELY. THERE'S LOTS OF COMMENTS. UM, AND SO THERE WILL BE WHAT I CALL THE BLOAT PHASE AND THEN THERE WILL BE THE REDUCTION PHASE AND THEN WE WILL PRESENT YOU WITH SOMETHING. WE HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK WHICH IS A CONTINUATION OF AN ITEM, UH, REGARDING VACANT BLOCKS ACTUALLY, UM, COMING BACK FOR US ON MONDAY. I DO NOT THINK WE WILL HAVE A RULE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER BY MONDAY, BUT I DO HOPE BY OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING AND I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT BY OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING, UM, WE'LL HAVE A RULE TO PRESENT AND DISCUSS WITH YOU THAT THE BOARD COULD ADOPT AS PRESENTED OR AS MODIFIED AT THAT MEETING AND THEN WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE FOR ANY HEARINGS THAT WERE TO OCCUR ON THAT DAY AND THEN THEREAFTER I NEED SOME ATION ON THAT. WE ARE PLANNING TO MEET NEXT MONDAY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THERE'S A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON MONDAY. OKAY. AND WHEN WE ARE ON THE AGENDA WILL BE A CASE WE'VE HEARD BEFORE 'CAUSE THE 60 DAYS IS UP AGAIN IS MY BETH, IF IT'S THE ONE ABOUT THE VACANT LAW AND I DON'T WANNA DISCUSS 'EM, I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT, WE'RE NOT THERE. I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT FOR THE RECORD THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE ACTIONS. [01:00:01] NO, NO. AND I WANTED TO SAY IS ON THAT ONE, INSTEAD OF HAVING AS CHAIR MAY I SAY, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR THE ITEM AS OPPOSED TO RECOMMEND AND ASSURE EVERYONE THAT AFTER WE HEAR THE ITEM BROWNIE'S HONOR, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE THEN, BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE, WE WILL HAVE A MOTION TO EITHER ACCEPT OR REJECT THE FINDINGS OF THAT. WILL THAT WORK FOR NEXT WEEK? CAN I JUST SAY, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO HEAR AS OPPOSED TO RECOMMEND? ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU DID TODAY THOUGH? YES, BUT I THINK I DID IT TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS ON HERE BECAUSE THIS IS THE FORM THEY GAVE ME BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE AND I'M NOT SURE IT WILL BE THAT WAY ON MONDAY. WELL, IT'S GONNA WORK AS YOU WANT IT TO. 'CAUSE YOU'RE THE BOARD I CLIENT WITH THE LAW LET US WORK WITH THE CLERK. I HAVE THE AGENDA PACKET ON MY DESK NOW AND WE'RE ALREADY TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT AS CLEAR AND AS NEUTRAL UNDER THE RULES THAT EXIST NOW AS POSSIBLE. I FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE EASIER ON THIS CASE BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN HERE BEFORE AND THE CASE IS ALREADY OUTSTANDING AND THERE WAS A PARTICULAR REASON FOR THE CONTINUUM. YOU MAY DISAGREE, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA DISCUSS THE CASE RIGHT NOW. AND SO, UH, WE WILL, WE WILL DO OUR, OUR DARNEST TO PUT A FAIR OBJECTIVE AND CLEAR HEADING ON THE AGENDA AND THEN IF THE BOARD NEEDS TO MODIFY THAT, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO WE'RE DECLINED TO HEARING THAT TOGETHER. I HAVE ANOTHER, A SUGGESTION FOR YOUR DOCUMENT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER AND IT'S, I I FROM THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, I HAVE PRACTICED IN FRONT OF THE SOUTH COAST AQMD'S HEARING BOARD FOR 45 YEARS, HUNDREDS OF HEARINGS. AND THEIR JOB IS AMONG OTHER THINGS ALSO TO HEAR APPEALS. AND WHEN THEY OPEN UP A, UM, A HEARING, THE CHAIR JUST SAYS THE HEARING IS OPEN. BANG. SO THE REASON WE DON'T DO THAT NOW IS BECAUSE WE'RE BOUND BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH TELLS US THAT ABSENT RULES WE'VE APPROVED, WE USE ROBERT'S RULES. OKAY. BUT I WOULD, SO I THAT COULD BE IN THE RULE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A VERY CLEAN WAY TO DO IT. YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MOTION PENDING. WE HEAR THE STAFF PRESENTATION, THEN SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION. I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR CLEANLINESS, THAT'S CERTAINLY VERY POSSIBLE FOR WHEN THIS BOARD ESTABLISHES ITS OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. YEAH, WE CAN'T DEVIATE FROM THE RULES UNTIL WE'VE GIVEN OURSELVES PERMISSION TO DEVIATE FROM THE RULES. WE CAN'T DEVIATE FROM THE RULES UNTIL WE'VE AGENDIZED OUR, OUR ITEM TO DISCUSS AND APPROVED PROCEDURAL RULES. UH, AND SO WE'RE STILL A TAKEAWAY FROM THAT HAPPENING BY MONDAY, BUT VERY MUCH UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. AND, AND AGAIN, I'LL POINT OUT THE CITY'S PRESENTATION ON ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER DOESN'T DO IT THAT WAY. IT DOES SAY STAFF PRESENTATION AND THEN MOTION AND SECOND, RIGHT? YEAH. AND I THINK THE STAFF'S RULES. OUR PROBLEM HERE AT BIAC IS WE'RE NOT, MOST OF THE BODIES AT THE CITY, MOST OF THE BODIES OF THE CITY ARE NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES. MOST ORGANIZATIONS THAT USE ROBERTS RULES ARE NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES. AND SO THAT MAY APPLY IN ANY ANOTHER NUMBER OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, UM, UH, MANAGER'S OPINION IS BEING SHARED WITH THE BOARD. UM, IT DOESN'T WORK AS WELL IN MY OPINION. AND BASED ON THE CONCERNS I'VE HEARD FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS WHERE WE HAVE A JUDICIAL HEARING THAT IS AN ISSUE VERSUS SOMETHING THAT A MEMBER IS PROMOTING OR A STAFF REPORT, I THINK ROBERTS WILL WORK FINE IN THOSE CONTEXT. UM, WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCES THAT ARISE FROM US NOT BEING A LEGISLATIVE BODY, BUT FROM A JUDICIARY JUDICIAL BODY. OKAY. AND I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT A QMD HEARING BOARD IS EXACTLY A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY THAT OPERATES VERY, BUT IT DOESN'T OPERATE UNDER LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.02 . AND THAT IS TRUE. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DO. BUT WE CAN AIM FOR THAT. AND OUR MUNICIPAL COACH GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT BEING ON YOUR AGENDA SOON, BUT PROBABLY NOT MONDAY. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE MEETINGS YOU WERE DOING SO WE, UM, CAN ESTABLISH NOT TODAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT AGENDA. I THINK IT WOULD. SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN [01:05:01] THIS WAY IS THAT AT, I THINK THE NEXT, REGULARLY SCHEDULED NEXT WEEK, BUT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, AFTER THAT STAFF WILL PRESENT YOU WITH, THERE'LL BE AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS AND POTENTIALLY ADOPT PROCEDURAL RULES FOR HEARINGS THAT WE'LL ABLE TO PRESENT YOU ON WHAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT, MAKE SUGGESTIONS, MAKE CHANGES, AND YOU ADOPT A RULER PROCESS THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH BROWN ACT, CONSISTENT WITH OUR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONSISTENT WITH, UM, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND CONCERN, BUT THEN SUPERSEDES ROBERT'S RULES AND DIRECT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT RELATES TO HERE, I GUESS. SO THE ANSWER IS NO. UH, YOU COULD, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IS WHEN THAT'S AGENDA IS CREATE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, WHICH COULD BE OF ONE PERSON AND THEN AUTHORIZE THAT PERSON TO GO ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, PARTICIPATE IN THESE CONVERSATIONS AND DECISIONS. SO THAT COULD HAPPEN AND YOU MAY END UP DOING THAT ONCE. THAT'S AGENDIZED. AND THAT'S IT FOR MY TRAIN. IT SEEMS KIND OF REDUNDANT AND MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? , . I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE ATTENTION AND THE VIGOROUS CONCERN, UM, THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS EXPRESSED DURING THESE CONVERSATIONS. I THINK IT SPEAKS REALLY WELL FOR YOUR DEDICATION, THE IMPORTANT PURPOSES THAT YOU'RE DOING HERE. AND, UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO ADVANCING THE EFFICACY AND EFFICIENCY OF THIS BOARD WITH YOU. OKAY. I DO HAVE ONE OF THE GOING BACK WAY AT THE BEGINNING ON OUR, OUR ISSUE WITH EXCUSED OR UNEXCUSED ABSENCES. IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE TO ME, AND I DON'T KNOW WHOSE JOB IT WOULD BE FOR SOMEBODY TO REACH OUT TO OUR MISSING MEMBER AND SAY, GEE, THE MEMBERS ARE STARTING TO BE CONCERNED THAT THEY'VE NEVER SEEN YOU. UM, AND THEY JUST VOTED TO MAKE YOUR MOST RECENT. SO WE HAVEN'T GENDERIZED ANYMORE ON THIS TOPIC. AND SO BEFORE WE GO TOO DEEP DOWN IT, I'LL JUST SAY THAT POTENTIALLY IN BROWN ACT, YOU KNOW, AGENDA IN ORDER TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. BUT WE'VE TAKEN A FIRST STEP HERE. I'LL USE THE PROCESS EXACTLY RIGHT. THERE WILL BE FOLLOW UP FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND STAFF. AND THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, BECAUSE WE HAVE MEMBERS WHO ARE READY TO LEAVE, WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WE WILL NOW CALL IT FOR THE VOTE. MEMBER RODRIGUEZ? YES. MEMBER HOOPS. YES. MEMBER HOWARD? YES. VICE CHAIR ASKIN? YES. CHAIR LIPSON? YES. MOTION IS CARRIED. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE WILL NOW TAKE NON AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SEEING NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WERE YOU RAISING YOUR HAND? NO. WE WILL CONSIDER THIS. UM, DONE. ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM MEMBERS? THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING DATE IS NEXT MONDAY, OCTOBER 20TH, 2025. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I DECLARE THE MEETING ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.