[00:00:01]
WHENEVER YOU ARE, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEAL IN CONDEMNATION MEETING TO ORDERS OF OCTOBER TWENTY, TWENTY, TWENTY FIVE.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLE MEMBER.
MEMBER HOOPS MEMBER POWER PRESENT.
MEMBER POWERS VICE CHAIR ASKIN HERE.
WE WILL NOW TAKE A VOTE TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS ON THE MEMBERS REGARDING THE EXCUSED ABSENCE.
ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS? I, I WILL OBJECT.
MEMBER POWERS OR MEMBER MEMBERS.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
A A ALL FOR THE FULL MOTION CARRIED.
MAY I PLEASE NOW ASK MEMBER AS
EYES AND STAND RIGHT THE UNITED STATES SENATOR TO THE REPUBLIC, WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD AND
IT IS NOW TIME FOR SWEARING OF WITNESSES.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
AND MADAM CLERK, TAKE WITNESS CARD OR DO I SAY, UM, I COULD SAY IT IF YOU'D.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THIS BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS IN CONDEMNATION MEETING SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
THANK YOU MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM? ITEM ONE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS APPEALS AND CONDEMNATION MEETINGS OF MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH AND OCTOBER 13TH, 2025.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THIS ITEM? I APPROVE POWER.
SECOND AND TURN ASKING SECOND THE MOTION MEMBERS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS ON THE MINUTES? THEN WE WILL MOVE ON.
WE WILL NOW TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MINUTES, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT INTO THE RECORD.
CONCLUDE THE HEARING BRANCH THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL, AND CONFIRM THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1508 ORANGE AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9 0 8 1 3 MEETS THE DEFINITION OF VACANT LAW AS STATED IN THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE OF 18.2 9.070 C, THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THE ANNUAL VACANT LOCK FEE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL? AND A SECOND FOR THIS ITEM.
MAY I ASK HER APPOINTED ORDER? UM, THIS MORNING WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM ISHA SAYING THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN GETTING THE AGENDA OUT.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE CONDUCT THE MEETING WITHOUT HAVING HAD THE 72 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE GRANT? I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS SENT OUT ALREADY PREVIOUSLY.
SO WE, WE BELIEVE THAT TIMELINE, THAT WAS, THAT WAS A FEW DAYS AGO.
I I THINK SHE WAS REFERRING PROBABLY TO THE, TO THE PAST ACTUALLY I THINK SHE WAS REFERRING TO THE CHAIR SCRIPT, WHICH IS WHAT CHANGED.
BUT I DID NOT READ WHY WOULD I REMEMBER? OKAY.
[00:05:01]
CAN EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED.SO ON FRIDAY BEFORE ONE 30, THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED ONLINE FOR THE PUBLIC.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE AGENDA THAT WE PUT OUT HAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS APPROVED.
UM, THE CHAIR SCRIPT, HOWEVER, WAS CHANGED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T UPDATE THE MOTION ON THE CHAIR SCRIPT TO THE ONE THAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE AGENDA.
SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE CURRENT CHAIR SCRIPT IN FRONT OF YOU.
I DO HAVE THE CURRENT CHAIR SCRIPT, BUT I STILL WANTED TO YOU WANNA CHANGE THE MOTION? YES.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE LAST MEETING.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
ALRIGHT, WELL WE HAVE, MAY I HAVE THIS MOTION TO SECOND OR GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PATENT? SO I, YEAH, NO, I, IS THIS, UM, DOES THIS MOTION RESULT IN HEARING TESTIMONY ABOUT IT? WHETHER WE YES.
WHETHER WE DENY OR GRANT THE NEXT SET WILL BE, HEAR THE TESTIMONY.
I HAVE ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR ATKINS AND THE SECOND IS DONE BY MEMBER ENRIQUES.
I WILL NOW TURN THINGS OVER TO THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
I GUESS ONE OTHER POINT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT THE EXHIBIT PACKAGE SAYS THIS IS ITEM ONE, BUT IT'S NOT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, VICE CHAIR
MY NAME IS MAN, I'M A PRINCIPAL BUILDING INSPECTOR BUREAU.
A REPORT ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2017 STATE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AMEN OF THE LONG MISS BOOK CLUB BY ADDING CHAPTER 18.29 MAINTENANCE
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT IT'S RELEVANT HERE, RELEVANT HERE THAT THE OWNER OF A PROPERTY THAT IS UNDEVELOPED AND SHALL PAY ANNUAL FEE AS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION RECEIVED COUNCIL EVERY 12 MONTHS.
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1508 ORANGE AVENUE BEACH, CALIFORNIA IS
LAW WAS ADJACENT TO AND CONTINUOUS WITH THE LAW.
CONTINUING FROM HOME ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2025, A LETTER WAS SENT INDICATING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1508 ORANGE AVENUE VACANT BLOCK SUBJECTED TO THE VACANT BLOCK PROGRAM.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18, 22 9 PROPOSED AND THAT FEES ASSOCIATED MONITORING THE S SUBJECT PROPERTIES WILL BE ASSESSED.
AND ANNUALLY, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 25TH, 2025, A VACANT LAW COMMITTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BUILDING LETTER THAT SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS LISTED ON THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAX ACCESS RECORD INDICATING FELONY INCLUDING THE FELONY.
THE LETTERS WERE MAILED TO 1506 ORANGE AVENUE, THE LOT MEANT TO THE LAW AT ISSUE.
ON APRIL 17TH, 2025, STAFF RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR APPEAL FOR VACANT LOCK PROGRAM.
DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT SHE OWNS THE LOT OR THAT THE LAW IS VACANT RATHER THAN APPELL AND ASSERT THAT THE LOT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE 1970.
THAT IS WELL MAINTAINED THAT EXPENSE AS PART OF HER PROPERTY AND THAT
THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD ON MAY 19TH, 2025.
DISCUSSION WAS HELD ABOUT
THE BOARD DETERMINED TO CONTINUE THE LEASE FOR 60 DAYS TO JULY 21ST, 2025, AND GET STAFF AND THE APPELLANT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE OPTIONS THAT WOULD EXEMPT THE LAW.
THE MATTER WAS RETURNED TO THE BOARD ON JULY 25TH, 2025.
APPELLANT HAD NOT OBTAINED A LEGAL EXEMPTION FROM THE VACANT LAW PROGRAM.
AS DISCUSSED AT THE NEW 19 20 25 MEETING.
IT WAS A DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD, AGAIN, LAID THIS ITEM OVER FOR 60 DAYS TO GIVE A FUND ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH THE PLANNING BUREAU WAYS TO AVOID THE LAW FEE, MOST PARTICULARLY
[00:10:02]
MERGE THE LOT WITH 1506 ORANGE.THE ZONING OFFICER AGREED TO PROVIDE THE LAW INFORMATION TO THE OWNER ON JULY 24TH, 2025.
THE ZONING OFFICER SENT THE OWNER AN EMAIL PROVIDING LOT ME RESOURCES INCLUDING LEASE FOR A CHECKLIST FROM A PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION, THE LOT ME FILING REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOT MERGING FILING.
AS OF OCTOBER 14TH, 2025,
UM, MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PRESENTATION MEMBER? UH, COUPLE QUESTION.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE FEBRUARY 1ST, 21ST LETTER AND I SHOULD DISCLOSE, I WAS NOT AT THE TWO PRIOR HEARINGS THAT COVERED THIS, BUT I HAVE READ THE MINUTES AND LISTENED TO THE MOST OF IT, AT LEAST OF THE AUDIO FOR THE TWO HEARINGS.
SO ON THE THE 21ST LETTER, I WAS THE ONE RECEIVING THIS.
I'D BE A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT I WAS BEING DIRECTED TO DO.
UM, BUT MY PRIMARY QUESTION IS, IT SAYS AT THE END IF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IMPROVED WITH STRUCTURE, PARTIAL WILL BE INSPECTED AND REMOVED THE BOTTOM LINE.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO COMPLETELY IMPROVE IN THE STRUCTURE? SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IF, UH, INDIVIDUAL OWNERS HAVE HAD OBTAINED PERMITS AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR LAND USE.
SO THEY RECRUIT BY PLANNING BUREAU TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THE LOT ABILITY PERMIT TO CONSIDER PARCEL.
SO IF THEY BUILT A GAZEBO ON THE PROPERTY AND GOT PERMITS FOR THAT AND SOLAR SOMETHING THAT SATISFIED OR REQUIREMENT I, I WOULDN'T PASS.
I AM A SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING BUREAU.
UM, WHAT IS CONSIDERED A GAZEBO IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PRIMARY USE.
PRIMARY USE IN THIS INSTANCE BEING A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AS THE PROPERTY SOUNDS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO WE WOULD NOT OMI A STANDALONE GAZEBO, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS AN ACCESSORY INSTRUCTION ON THE SITE.
MY FIRST QUESTION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR MR. RE OR DETERMINE, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW DID THIS VACANT LOT COME TO THE CITY'S ATTENTION? THE ACCESSORIES REPORT.
SO THE, WE RECEIVED THAT, UH, REPORT WHEN THEY GET THE SEVEN FROM SEVEN THREE WHILE THEY CAN
AND THEN AFTER UH, A REVIEW, THEY WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHICH ONE TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER
IN TERMS OF THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS TO MAKE SURE THAT VACANT LOTS ARE REGULATED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM BECOMING BLIGHTED? CORRECT.
DOES THIS VACANT LOT MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD LESS SAFE OR APPEAR TO BE BLIGHTED? NOT AT MOMENT.
IN ADDITION, IT SUGGESTS THAT A VACANT LOCK, THAT THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT THE OWNER MAINTAIN ANY PERIMETER FENCING FREE OF WEED, DRIVEWAY, ET CETERA.
IT ALSO SAYS THAT THE LOT NEEDS TO BE ENCLOSED AND SECURED WITH A FENCE.
IS THE OWNER DOING THAT? SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS IN THE LA COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR RECORDS, DOES IT SEEM THAT THIS IS WHAT THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO CHARGE A FEE FOR? IT'S PART OF IT.
UH, THE OTHER PORTION IS THAT IS STILL UN SO THE IDEA IS ALSO TO GET THOSE, UH, PARCELS TO BECOME DEVELOPED.
DOES IT SAY THAT ANYWHERE IN THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW? BECAUSE I'M READING WHAT THE, THE LAW HAD SAID AND DID NOT SEEM TO BE THAT THIS WAS THE CITY COUNCIL'S PURPOSE.
UH, BUT THERE, THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT, THAT YOU REQUIRE THEM TO BE, UH, MORE BUT NOT BE CONSIDER TO HAVE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
[00:15:01]
ANY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? WELL, I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO HEAR WHAT THE STATUS AND OPINION OF A LOT USE FROM THE PROPERTYFROM MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, THAT INFORMATION WILL CLEAR, RIGHT? I WOULDN'T GO IN THAT POSITION.
I ASK MORE QUESTIONS,
ANY QUESTIONS MR.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I WILL NOW TURN THINGS OVER TO THE APPELLANT IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT.
UM, I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THE ANSWER TO THE LOCK MERGER QUESTION.
UM, SHE WAS SWORN IN THE, OH, I'M VIVIAN BIAS.
I AM THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER AND I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM THE CITY ABOUT RESOURCES TO DO A LOT MERGER, WHICH ENTAILS GETTING A SURVEY DONE, WHICH WILL COST SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS.
BUT MY MAIN CONCERN WAS WHAT'S THIS WOULD TRIGGER WITH AN ASSESSOR.
UM, THE PROPERTY THAT I LIVE ON AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS ACTUALLY, AND IF YOU SEE THE NAME ON THE PROPERTY, MARSHALL VIVIAN MARSHALL WAS MY DAD.
UM, HE'S THE ONE THAT PURCHASED IT IN 1970 WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL.
AND SO IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED
AND SO I DID TALK TO AN ATTORNEY WHO BASICALLY SAID, YEAH, THIS WOULD TRIGGER THE COUNTY TO REASSESS THE WHOLE PROPERTY AND YOU WOULD SEE A SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT, UH, TAX PROPERTY TAX BILL BASED ON THE CURRENT TAX BASE, WHICH HAS BEEN THE SAME, YOU KNOW, AS A PROP 13 TO TODAY.
SO HE'S LIKE, UNLESS YOU ARE READY TO COME UP WITH PROBABLY ABOUT 10,000 A YEAR
UM, SO THAT IS JUST NOT FEASIBLE FOR ME.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S, I I JUST RETIRED A COUPLE YEARS, SO I'M GOING TO FIX ANY KIND.
SO I CAN'T, I CAN'T AFFORD TO, YOU KNOW, DO ANYTHING.
I JUST HAD SOME WORK DONE ON MY HOUSE.
SO IT, IT'S NOT IN THE CARDS TO DO, TO DO A LOT.
ARE YOU READY FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR DID YOU HAVE MORE TO PRESENT? THAT'S, THAT'S IT.
I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS WHAT, UM, I HAD LOOKED AT TOO MANY.
I DID LOOK INTO THE LAW SITUATION.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? WE DON'T HAVE
UM, UH, THANK YOU FOR, UM, COMING OVER TODAY.
IF WE REFLECT, NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT, NOT JUST ISSUE, BUT FROM EVERYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING, UM, HAVE YOU, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU HAD SOME PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, NOT LEGAL CIRCUM, BUT JUST ADVICE ON THE REPERCUSSIONS OF SAY PROPERTY TAXES IF YOUR PROPERTY ASSETS TODAY.
UM, IT'S A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE, RIGHT? I THINK THE PROPERTY STILL UNDER YOUR FATHER'S NAME, IT'S UNDER A BOTH YOUR NAME, RIGHT? UM, BUT THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S JUST GETTING LOT MERGER AND THE SITE WITH S ALL TOGETHER.
MAYBE AGAIN, THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENTS ON THE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TRIGGER, RIGHT? BUT I JUST WANTED TO, MY DEFINITION OF IMPROVEMENT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO PAINT A CONTRACT BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO DO THE SECOND HOME, YOUR PROPERTY TAXES IS, THAT'S MY
AND I, AND I HAD LOOKED INTO THAT.
I MEAN I'VE HAD PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS APPROACH ME.
[00:20:01]
TO, UH, PUT UH, PROP, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS ON THAT LOT, MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS ON THAT LOT.UM, IT'S JUST THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY SUPER DENSE AND THERE'S LITERALLY NO PARKING AS IS RIGHT NOW.
IT IS, IT IS, TO ME, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A DISASTER AT NIGHT.
YOU DRIVE THROUGH THE STREETS AND CARS ARE DOUBLE, TRIPLE PARK.
SO THE STREETS YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THROUGH.
GOD FORBID THERE WAS A FIRE BECAUSE THE FIRE TRUCKS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK.
THEY'RE LITERALLY PARKING THE STREET.
AND SO TO ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE CITY STAFF HERE, YOU HAVE PLANNERS AND PEOPLE WITH DEGREES.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF TRYING TO MAKE A CITY LIKE LONG BEACH, A BUILT OUT CITY OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD.
SAGGING DENSITY UPON DENSITY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANAGE.
WE DON'T HAVE MAKING PARKING, WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE DENSITY.
UM, DRIVE DRIVING DOWN ANY STREET ALAMEDOS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BICYCLES, THERE'S SCOOTERS, THERE'S PEOPLE WALKING, THERE'S, IT'S A DISASTER.
WE HAVE OVER, I I ACTUALLY LOOKED IT UP.
YOU KNOW, I HAD A CAR TOTALED TWO YEARS AGO.
UM, WE HAVE 365,000 ACCIDENTS IN THIS STATE EVERY YEAR.
CAR ACCIDENTS A DAY, A THOUSAND A DAY.
WE HAVE OVER 1200 PEOPLE KILLED IN PEDESTRIAN RELATED ACCIDENTS A DAY.
WE DON'T DO TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT IN THIS CITY.
SO IT'S LITERALLY THE WILD WEST.
THAT'S WHY I DON'T, I HATE DRIVING ANYWAY, I LEFT HERE AT MY HOUSE AT 1230 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW
BECAUSE IF YOU ADD A TAX, YOU HAVE TO GO TOWARD THE VOTERS.
THE VOTERS DECIDE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CALLED TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
BUT IF THE CITIES SAY IT'S A FEE, YOU CAN SKIP PASS THROUGH THE VOTER PROCESS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET THE VOTERS TO APPROVE IT.
SO I THINK THE LOOPHOLE THAT THE CITY IS USING IS THEY'RE ASSESSING THESE FEES FOR, AND AGAIN, I DON'T, I DID ASK, I MADE A PUBLIC RECORD TURN OUT TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST BECAUSE I ACTUALLY WANTED TO SEE HOW MUCH TIME THE CITY HAS ACTUALLY SPENT ON MY PARTICULAR PROPERTY, HOW MANY TIMES THEY'VE INSPECTED IT, WHAT WAS THE COST BECAUSE I, WHEN I ADD UP EVERYTHING THAT I'M BEING BILLED FOR, IT'S OVER $6,000 SINCE 2018.
SO HAVE THEY EXTENDED $6,000 INSPECTING MY PROPERTY? I'M TRYING TO RELATE WHERE THAT FEE IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM.
AND THEY, THEY JUST KIND OF SENT ME A DATA DUMP OF EVERY FEE IN THE CITY AND IT DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION 'CAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR PAYROLL RECORDS, TIME RECORDS, SOMETHING.
SO, OKAY, INSPECTOR SO-AND-SO CAME OUT ON THIS DATE, LOOKED AT THE LOT, NOTED WHATEVER THEY NOTED AND THAT WAS IT.
THAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE THAN, I DON'T KNOW, 15 YOU SAW.
HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE? I DON'T KNOW.
SO AGAIN, WHERE THIS AMOUNT'S COMING FROM, WHY I'M BEING CHARGED THIS AMOUNT OR A LOT THAT THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING ON EVER.
THEY HAVEN'T HAD TO WEED, NO WEED ABATEMENT, NOTHING.
THERE WAS SOME TRASH, BUT I WAS REMODELING THE HOUSE.
I JUST GOT A NEW GARDENER AND HE IS COMING THURSDAY.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER GUY WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.
UM, BUT I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN
WE JUMPED ON THIS VERY MACRO, UH, LARGE ISSUE, RIGHT? PARKING, TRANSPORTATION.
RIGHT NOW WE FOCUS ON YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
MULTIPLE PRIORITY SOLVING THE CITY'S PARKING.
AND THAT WE THROUGH EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE SCENARIO SOLUTION TO SEE HOW WE CAN BEST ADDRESS THIS FEE RIGHT BLOCK AND WHAT ARE, WHAT HAVE YOU EXPLORED AND YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, EXTRA EXPENSE THAT YOU CAN AFFORD.
THAT'S WHAT KIND OF SEE YOU HAVE SEEN OTHER SOLUTIONS ON TOP OF JUST GET LOT ASSESSMENT.
'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I USE THE BEST AS POSSIBLE.
UM, THE CITY ANNOUNCED THAT A YEAR OR TWO AGO ABOUT AN A D PROGRAM AND THEY WERE GONNA SELECT CERTAIN HOMEOWNERS
[00:25:01]
IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS TO SEE IF THEY WERE PARTNERED WITH AN A DU.OKAY, I'M DEALING WITH THIS VACANT LOT FEE AND THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, CRISIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY.
SEE IF PEOPLE SLEEPING IN THE PARKING ACROSS THE STREET.
SO I THOUGHT, OKAY, WELL MAYBE THEY'LL SELECT BECAUSE THEY WANT ME TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS SLOT.
UM, THEN IS ANOTHER ARTICLE THAT SAID THAT THE CITY HAD RETURNED SOMETHING LIKE 5,000 TINY HOMES BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE LONG BEACH TO PUT THEM.
BECAUSE THEN I SAW ANOTHER ARTICLE THAT SAYS LONG BEACH HAS OVER 150 VACANT LOTS.
SO YOU RETURN THE MONEY FOR GRANTS FOR TINY HOMES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PUT THEM.
BUT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH 150 VACANT LOTS.
I DON'T GET, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE GOT CITY STAFF HERE, MAYBE THEY CAN ENLIGHTEN ME.
IF YOU HAD A PREFABRICATED AND I HAVE A LOT THAT YOU SAY YOU NEED STRUCTURE ON IT AND YOU HAVE A CRISIS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE STREET, NO ONE CONTACTED ME AND SAID, HEY, YOU'VE GOT THIS BIG LOT HERE.
YOU COULD PUT AT LEAST TWO OR THREE, MAYBE 80, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT? I'M NOT A HEARTLESS PERSON, YOU KNOW.
I LOVE MY BIRDS AND TREES, BUT WE ALSO SEE THE HOUSE PEOPLE.
I HATE TO SEE WOMEN AND CHILDREN SLEEPING IN THEIR CARS IN THE STREET.
BUT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH, WITH THE CITY.
THIS AGAIN, I'M JUST MY OPINION AS A TAXPAYER, THIS KIND OF SEEMS LIKE A, JUST A MONEY GRAPH.
'CAUSE IF YOU NEED, IF YOU NEEDED PLACES TO PUT A USED, THANK YOU MR.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR VIEWS ON THESE ISSUES.
I WANT TO TRY TO NARROW US DOWN TO WHAT WE CAN DECIDE.
SO WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO INDEED SOME YEARS BACK THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS KIND OF FEE IS A FEE OR TAX WAS BROUGHT TO THIS COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES AND IT WAS CLEARLY DETERMINED THAT'S OUTSIDE OUR SCOPE OF PROPERTY.
SIMILARLY, THE QUESTION OF OTHER USES INCLUDING A DU WITH THE PROPERTY, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I'D LOVE TO TAKE US BACK TO THE NARROW ISSUE WHICH WAS RAISED BY THE CHAIR, WHICH IS WHETHER IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO IMPOSE THIS FEE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY GIVEN THE CLEARLY WELL MAINTAINED CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND IS THAT A QUESTION FOR MS. DEAS? IT IS A COMMENT TO, UM, IT'S A COMMENT TO MS. DEAS THAT'S REALLY A SUGGESTION THAT WE ARE PROBABLY IN A POSITION AS A COMMISSION WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO RULE ALL THIS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. TOBIAS? IF NOT, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU MS. TOBIAS.
IN ONE OF YOUR PIECES OF, UM, ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, I BELIEVE IT'S EXHIBIT SEVEN OR EIGHT, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CITY REMOVED THE SEPARATE DRIVEWAY AND SAID THEY CONSIDERED IT ALL AS ONE PROPERTY.
DO YOU, AND I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT IN YOUR LETTER, DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THAT? UM, IT WOULD BE WHEN THEY DECIDED TO MAKE THAT POCKET PARK, WHICH WAS PROBABLY 2008.
SO THAT'S GOING BACK 2007, 2008, UM, BEFORE IT WAS THE ROSA PARKS POCKET PARK.
IT WAS A, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GROCERY STORE.
IT HAD BEEN OTHER BUSINESSES, UM, ACROSS THE STREET.
IT, THE TRIANGULAR KIND OF STRUCK A LOT.
AND WHEN THEY DECIDED TO MAKE IT A POCKET PARK WORKING WITH, UH, COUNCILMAN LAURA REGISTER BATH AND SHE GOT TO C TO APPROVE THAT.
UM, THEY RECONFIGURED THAT WHOLE BLOCK OF ORANGE AVENUE.
SO WHERE I LIVE, 1500 BLOCK WAS, WELL THEY RECONFIGURED ACTUALLY THE WHOLE FROM PCH TO 15, THEY TOLD ME RECONFIGURED 'CAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER LOT.
SO IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING 'CAUSE PEOPLE GET LOST WHEN THEY'RE COMING TO MIND BECAUSE IF YOU GET OFF, LET'S SAY YOU GET OFF THE PROPO, IT SAYS ORANGE AVENUE, BUT THEN WHEN YOU'RE TRAVELING SOUTH ON ORANGE, YOU GET PAST PCA AND THEN IT SAYS ALAMEDAS.
AND WITH NO SIGNAGE, IT USED TO BE A SIGN BECAUSE THERE USED TO BE LIKE A LITTLE TURNOFF TO ORANGE AND ALAMEDAS.
AND THERE WAS A SIGN THAT SAID AT 16 THAT SAID ORANGE AVENUE.
SO PEOPLE NOW LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT HAPPENED TO ORANGE
[00:30:01]
AVENUE? WHICH IS MY LITTLE SECTION BECAUSE NOW THE PARK IS THERE.SO THEY NARROWED THE STREET TO MAKE IT INTO A ONE-WAY STREET.
IT USED TO BE A TWO-WAY STREET AND TO MAKE THE POCKET PARK WIDER, LARGER.
SO WHEN THEY NARROWED THE STREET, THEY TORE UP THE STREET AND TORE UP THE SIDEWALKS.
AND WHEN THEY PUT THIS, THE SIDEWALK BACK, THE DRIVEWAY TO 1508 WAS GONE BECAUSE THAT WAS A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY.
SO IT WAS MY DRIVEWAY 1506 AND THEN THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY TO 1508.
AND SO WHEN I MENTIONED IT TO THE, I FORGET WHO IT WAS, DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES.
AND THEY SAID, WELL, BECAUSE THE WAY IT WAS FENCE, I GUESS WHOEVER THE CONTRACTOR WAS, JUST SAW IT AS ONE LOCK.
'CAUSE THERE WAS, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A SEPARATE FENCE THERE, YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES I TOOK YOU OF THE FENCE THERE WHERE YOU SEE THAT SEPARATE, THERE'S A SLIDING FENCE THAT'S 1506 WITH A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
IF YOU LOOK DOWN, THERE'S ANOTHER FENCE THAT OPENS THIS WAY.
THAT'S WHERE THE OLD DRIVEWAY WAS.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S A FENCE THERE.
SO THERE WAS, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S TWO OPENINGS IN THAT FENCE.
SO, AND YOUR RECOLLECTION IS THAT SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOLD YOU IT WOULD NOW BE CONSIDERED UNLOCKED? YEAH, WHEN I CALLED BECAUSE I SAID, WELL WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DRIVEWAY? BECAUSE VARIOUS TIMES THEY HAVE BEEN USED TO TO STORE.
LIKE RIGHT NOW, UM, UH, WE HAVE A A, A FAMILY WATERCRAFT ON THE LOT.
SO VARIOUS TIMES IT'S BEEN USED TEMPORARILY FOR THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THE DRIVEWAY, UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T BEING USED AS A DRIVEWAY 'CAUSE THERE WAS NO HOUSE THERE, BUT THE, THE CUTOFF OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS THERE.
SO NOW IF I WERE TO PUT ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE AND HAVE A REQUIRED DRIVEWAY PARKING, WE HAVE TO DO THE STREET DRIVEWAY CUT OUT.
I BELIEVE THIS LAW WAS PASSED IN 2017 OR WAS IT 2018? 2017.
AND MY ION IS WHEN DID THE CITY FIRST CONTACT YOU REGARDING THIS DATA THAT THEY HAD BLOCKED? NO, I GOT THAT FIRST LETTER AND I GOT A, SOMEONE SENT ME SOMETHING THAT SAID THE FEE WASN'T ASSESSED.
WHEN WAS THE FIRST FEE ASSESSED? WHAT YEAR DID THAT BE? THE LETTER I GOT, I GOT A LETTER IN 2018 THAT SAID THE FEE WAS $660.
I GOT THE SECOND LETTER IN 2019, IT SAID IT WAS $660.
IT DIDN'T START TO APPEAR ON MY TAX PROPERTY TAX BILL UNTIL 2020.
AND THEN EVER SINCE 2018, EVERY YEAR I'VE BEEN GETTING A LETTER FOR A FEE STARTED OFF AT 660 AND MOST RECENT TAX BILL FOR THIS YEAR, IT'S NOW $804.
AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FEE IS FOR TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THAT'S GONE UP ALMOST $200.
SO THE FIRST WE HEARD OF IT WAS WHEN SHORTLY AFTER THE LAW TAKES PLACE, YOU RECEIVE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE $660 THAT WAS NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY TAXES.
IS THAT CORRECT? I ACTUALLY HAVE LETTER.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT I HAD NOTICED TO PAY VACANT LOT MONITORING FEES.
ANNUAL FEE 2018 WAS DATED TO MYSELF AND MY FATHER AND DATED NOVEMBER 15TH, 2018.
AND THIS IS WHERE IT SAYS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 18 TO NINE, THE COST OF 660 IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR MONTH.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST, UM,
AND THEN YOU SAID WHEN DID IT START APPEARING ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL? 2020.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S PROBABLY FOR STAFF.
CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS? WELL, FOR THOSE THAT THIS, YES.
UM, WELL I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHAT THE MECHANISM FOR THE FEE IS.
I'M TRYING TO
[00:35:01]
FILE A LIEN AND THEN IT SHOWS UP ON THE PROPERTY TAX.THAT'S UM, SO IF WE WERE TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, THEN THE CITY WOULD NEED TO RELEASE THAT LIE AS WELL AS EMPLOY WHATEVER INDIAN ACTIONS THERE ARE.
IS THAT WHAT WE NEED? I DON'T THINK THAT PUTS HAPPEN JUST PAIN CORRECT.
WELL WE, I ASSUME SHE'S APPEALING ALL OF THESE, NOT JUST THE CURRENT DUE.
ALL THE THESE THAT WENT, IF THEY WENT TO TAXES, PROBABLY 11, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE ATTORNEY.
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IS CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONE WHO PASSED THIS FEE.
CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONE WHO PASSED THIS ORDINANCE.
UM, THIS BODY DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISAGREE WITH FEE.
UM, OR ABOUT THE, THE AMOUNT OF THE, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS, APPEARS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT'S YOU HAVE, UH, WHAT IS LEGALLY VACANT LAW, THEN YOU ARE LIABLE FOR THAT IS WHAT THIS APPEALS ABOUT.
AND WHAT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER IN LIFE.
YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
IT DOESN'T REALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION, WHICH WAS MY ASSUMPTION IS SHE'S A DEALING ALL FEES, NOT JUST THE ONE THAT HAPPENS TO BE DUE THIS YEAR.
SO THAT IS QUESTION NUMBER ONE.
IS THIS, DOES THE CITY THINK THAT'S NOT THE CASE? AND I GUESS IF WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO SAY THAT THE FEE ISN'T REALLY DUE, THEN WHAT ARE WE FOR? WELL, YOU, YOU DO HAVE DO THAT, BUT WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS.
SO MY EXPLANATION OF THE BASIS SEEMS TO BE THAT I KEEP LOOKING AT THE INTENT OF THE LAW IN WHICH THEY CLEARLY STATE IS WHEN VACANT LOSS BECOME HARMFUL AND THERE'S A WHOLE THING OF ABATING THE HARMFUL WEIGHT AND LOSS.
BUT THIS HOMEOWNER HAS ALREADY DONE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT THE ABATEMENT WOULD REQUIRE.
AND, AND I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE WOULD APPROVE A FEE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO THE INTENTION OF THE LAW.
I WOULD ONLY POINT OUT THAT THE WAY IN WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL WROTE PEOPLE REQUIRES A FEE IN MONITORING FEE FOR ALL THE VACANT LOTS IN THE CITY.
AND SO YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE IDEA HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE VACANT LOTS DO NOT BECOME AUTOMATIC.
THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING KEPT UP, THAT THEY'RE NOT FENCED AT SET.
AND SO, UM, THE FIGURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS FOUND IN 18 18 22 9, 20 0 8 OH SUBSECTION E.
UM, AND IT COSTS ABOUT REGISTER
AN ANNUAL OWNER MUST PAY AN ANNUAL FEE AS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DEFRAY THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE CHECK.
THE IDEA BEING THAT AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN A VACANT LOT, WHETHER IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR NOT, THERE IS A MONITORING TO THE CITY IS DOING.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE BASIS FOR THE POSITION.
AND, AND THE ONE THING I SAY GOES BACK TO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT THE, AND, AND I JUST FORGOT THE WORD THAT I WANT, BUT IT'S THE IDEA OF, AGAIN, THE INTENT OF THE LAW, PURPOSE OF THE LAW, THE SPIRIT, I SUPPOSE I SHOULD SAY THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE USED IN THE MANNER IT'S USED.
AND THAT'S WHY I WONDERED WHY THE CITY WENT TO THE LA COUNTY ASSESSMENT RECORDS TO GO, THAT SOUNDS TO ME VERY MUCH LIKE A LET'S GET A LOT OF MONEY, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE ATTACKS
[00:40:01]
AS OPPOSED TO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH INSPECTORS DRIVING AROUND AND SAYING, LOOK AT THIS LIGHT, LOOK AT THIS HORRIBLE THING AND TAKING PHOTOS WITH THE PHOTOS THAT WE'RE PRESENTED WITH.AND I AGAIN UNDERSTOOD, BUT THE FEED WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE THE ORDINANCE DOES HAVE OTHER PROVISIONS FOR ADDRESSING, YOU HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS
THEY DON'T GET ANY NUISANCE, UH, TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE LANDLORD.
WE ACQUIRING THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS, UM, ORDINANCE.
BUT WHAT WE ARE SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT AT THIS POINT IS THE MONITORING THING THAT IS IMPOSED ON EVERY VACANT BLOCK, UM, IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, UM, AS A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD DO.
AND THEY SAID THAT I SLEEP ON VERY BASIS WHEN FEES ARE CITY COUNCIL EVERY YEAR FEES, UM, CITY THAT WE DECISION ISSUES.
UM, SO HOW IS THIS NOT ATTACHED? SO I'M NOT REALLY PREPARED TO LIKE GET INTO THE BOTTOM LINE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT
UM, IT NEEDS TO BE CORRELATED, WHATEVER THE THOUGHTS ARE
UM, BUT THERE'S NEVER GONNA BE LIKE A PERFECT FIT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH IS BEING DONE.
IT IS ALSO BEING DONE IN THE AGGREGATE NOT FOR PROPERTY.
UM, TO, AND AGAIN, THAT'S SORT OF, THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
SO I WELL MAY I'M, I'M NOT GOING TO RAISE THAT ISSUE FURTHER BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND OUR PURVIEW, WHETHER IT'S THE FACTS, BUT IN READING THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, NOT JUST THE INTENT, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, IT APPEARS, AND I THINK THE CHAIR DID VERY GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING THIS.
IT APPEARS THAT THIS PARTICULAR VACANT LOT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN ESSENTIALLY EACH OF THE MATTERS THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE.
UM, AND I COULD GO THROUGH 'EM AGAIN, BUT I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GO THROUGH THEM VERY EFFECTIVELY.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHILE I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO US, CAPACITY CITY ATTORNEY, I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, IN BEING READ IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO RULE IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOP.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE MEMBER ENRIQUE HAS A QUESTION, COMMENT.
UM, AND THAT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THIS BOARD SEES ITS ORDINANCE NOT APPLICABLE
EVEN THEY OWN SOMETHING THAT'S MULTI-GENERATIONAL AND CREATE WELL FOR THEIR FAMILIES THAT HELPING BE KEPT IN A GOOD MANNER THE COMMUNITY AND SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY NOW BLAMING
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE COULD KEEP GOING OVER AND OVER ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.
AND ALTHOUGH WE'RE PROBING, WE'RE ACTUALLY BEING ACCESSIBLE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THIS IS LIKE WHAT WE HAVE WITH ALL THE LONG BEACH AND THEN WE CRISIS, WE PUSHED UP THE NATURALLY RECURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PEOPLE IN THAT COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT
SO WE JUST WANT TO HAVE A LOT MORE CLARITY FROM THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE SO WE CAN MOVE US FORWARD AND MAKE THE BEST DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LONG,
[00:45:01]
THAT'S FINE.WE SHOULD, HOWARD DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? UM, NOT AT THIS POINT.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATION? I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE AND I MAY ADD SOMETHING.
REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE, YOU HAVE TO ALSO MAKE, UH, REMEMBER THAT UNDER 18.29 C 14, THIS WILL STILL BE CONSIDERED VACANT LAW, THE ORIGINAL.
SO YOU, YOU DECIDE TO VOTE WHERE IT DOESN'T NEED, YOU KNOW, THE STIPULATION OF NOT IF IT'S BEING MAINTAINED, THERE'S NO, IT WILL STILL BE A VACANT MODEL.
SO THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT IT LEAVES THE DEFINITION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MODEL.
SO EVEN IF YOU WERE TO SAY IT DOESN'T APPLY TODAY UNLESS PLANNING AMENS THAT INSTEAD, YOU KNOW, ISN'T, UH, PERMISSION TO CHANGE THAT, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS.
SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
SO YOU HAVE ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOME THE LANGUAGE WHICH RELATES TO MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS IT IS THE VIEW OF THIS COMMISSION NUMBER ONE THAT THE APPEAL RELATES NOT JUST TO PRESENT FEE BUT THE PRIOR FEES.
AND NUMBER TWO, THAT IT IS THE VIEW OF THIS COMMISSION THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA.
THAT WOULD BE THAT A VACANT LOT SUBJECT TO THE ANNUAL.
I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BUSTER THIS BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THAT DETERMINATION.
THAT FACTS THAT YOU'RE BASING THAT STIGMA.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, BUT IT'S NOT A VACANT BLOCK.
YOU HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE, AND THEN PROVIDE THE UNDERLYING FACTS.
YEAH, I BELIEVE THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE CHAIR IN REVIEWING THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE REVIEW.
AND BEFORE I ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I HAVE A QUESTION AND I THINK IT'S FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION REGARDING MORE RESEARCH WHEN THE DRIVEWAY DISAPPEARED AND AT LEAST VERBALLY THE PLAINTIFF STATES, THE APPELLANT STATES THAT SHE WAS TOLD THIS WOULD NOW BE CONSIDERED ONE PROPERTY.
SO IT IT'S A SORT OF THE, THE QUESTION IS YES, IN, IN TERMS OF BASING THINGS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MEETING OR REASON MY REASONING, AND AT THIS POINT I GUESS I WOULD ASK THE CITY STAFF AS WELL AS ATTORNEY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO KNOWS REGARDING THIS CONVERSATION? I MEAN THAT THERE'S NO LONGER A DRIVEWAY THERE STRIKES ME AS SOMETHING THAT VERY MUCH SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ONE BLOCK, BUT YOU CAN SEND THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR A FULL REPORT ABOUT ISSUES SUCH AS THOSE, UH, AND THEN DEFER MAKING DETERMINATION UNTIL THE STAFF COMES BACK FOR THE NATION.
UM, SO WOULD THAT BE CABLING IT OR JUST REFERRING IT BACK TO STAFF? SO I THINK THAT, THAT AT THIS POINT YOU WOULD CONTINUE THE HEARING THAT'S, THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
YOU COULD LAY THE ITEM OVER TO A DATE, CERTAIN TIME, CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS, STAFF TO COME BACK WITH FURTHER REPORT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH RESPECT TO THE
SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT WITH, UM, MANNY WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO THE DEFINITIONS.
SO DEFINITIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR US WHEN WE CONSIDER THINGS ON WHAT THEY ARE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AGAIN, UM, ON SECTION C UNDER WHAT 18 29 0 7 0, UM, S VACANT LOT, IT SAYS THAT A VACANT LOT SHALL MEAN ANY PROPERTY.
I'M JUST GONNA READ THE PORTION.
THE LIFE HERE IS LOCKED OR PARCEL THAT IT'S EITHER UNDEVELOPED, SO IT SAYS THEY'RE GONNA REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.
UH, WHEN YOU GO INTO THE, YOU MENTIONED THE ASSESSOR DOCUMENT, THE ASSESSOR OFFICE,
[00:50:01]
BUT THE CITY DID BACK THEN, THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAPTURED ALL VACANT LOCKS TO VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE FOR STAFF TO LOOK AT, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ISSUE OR NOT.AT THE TIME THAT THEY WEREN'T WAS CREATED BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES OCCURRING ON VACANT LOCKS ON THE ENCAMPMENTS FOR HEATING AND DUMPING, UH, LOT DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT WERE OCCURRING.
SO WHEN STAFF DID, IF YOU LOOKED AT ALL PARCELS THAT WERE CONSIDERED VACANT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSORS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY THAT'S WHAT IT IS, THAT'S WHAT WE CLASSIFY IT AS.
SO WE WENT OUT THERE AND VERIFIED THESE LOTS, NOT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE MONEY, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO VERIFY THE CAPTURE ALL.
SO THE, THE LEGAL DEFINITION FOR THIS PARCEL WAS A VACANT LOT ACCORDING TO THE ACCESSORIES.
IT'S ALSO CONSIDERED A VACANT LAW ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL SAID THIS IS WHAT WE FIND IN THE VACANT LAW.
WE MEANS THAT THERE IS IT'S
UM, NOW WHEN YOU GO BACK, THE APRONS ARE STILL THERE, BUT THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY.
'CAUSE OVER TIME THE PROPERTY HAS CHANGED.
BUT, UH, IN THIS SITUATION YOU GET THE FACT THAT SOMEONE OLDER TOLD HER WHAT THEY TOLD HER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED.
BUT WHERE IS IT IN WRITING? IF YOU WANT US TO LOOK INTO THAT, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IF WE COME BACK AND SAY THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION FOUND ANYWHERE THAT SAYS THIS IS A A ONE PARCEL, BUT BECAUSE LA COUNTY HAS CONSIDER IT A SEPARATE PARCEL, SO IT HAS OWN OWN A PN NUMBER.
UM, IT'S ENCLOSED IT'S OWN PARCEL.
SHE SAID WE CONFIRM THAT IT'S, ITS ITS OWN PARCEL.
UM, AND MENTIONED THAT SHE PAID HIS FEE ON THE PROPERTY TAXES.
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PAID IT.
SO WE, WE LEAVE THE PROPERTY WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER FAILS TO PAY THE, THE, THE FEE.
UH, SO I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT AS YOU CONSIDER YOUR DECISION, UM, FURTHER, BECAUSE LIKE MANY
AND AS YOU RECALL IN THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, WE ALSO, MYSELF AND THE PLANNING FOLKS, WE, WE WENT THROUGH THE LIST OF HOW LONG THE OWNER CAN GET OUT OF THIS FEE, THE OPTIONS THAT HE, THAT HE HAS.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE POCKET PARK, WHICH SHE SAID HE WASN'T INTERESTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL USE.
UH, THERE'S TEMPORARY THAT, THAT SHE CAN HAVE, HAVE
SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRAPPING HER INTO DOING A A, A JOINING UP THE TWO PROPERTIES.
UH, BUT AGAIN, SHE'S LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL BEING IT'S BILL REASONABLE THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT PROPERTY TAX, BUT SHE HAS TO DECIDE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO THERE.
WHETHER OR NOT SHE DECIDES TO MERGE, KEEP PAYING THIS FEE OR SHE DEVELOPS THE PROPERTY, SHE HAS OPTIONS.
BUT AGAIN, I'M JUST POINT OUT THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KIND OF HEAR US OUT ON HOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE CAN STILL COME BACK NEXT YEAR UNTIL THIS IS STILL A BIG LOG ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION.
UM, BUT AGAIN, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
I I APPRECIATE THAT AND, AND I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN LOOKING AT IT.
I CAN SEE WHERE IT STRIKES ME PERSONALLY, BUT, UH, ONLY LIKE TO STAND ON, IF YOU WILL, IS THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED AS ONE PROPERTY.
AND I, AND I WOULD ALSO THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION WHEN THE CITY REMOVES, AND I'M ASSUMING THE PROPERTY DIDN'T GIVE PERMISSION WHEN THE CITY REMOVES A DRIVEWAY, WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I, I ABSOLUTELY SADLY SEE THE LOGIC OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ALTHOUGH IT'S STILL HURTS MY FILE.
YEAH, SO I DO HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT.
READING THIS FORMAT, WORKING WITH DEFINITIONS, IT SOUNDS LIKE ARGUMENT RECITING THIS PARTICULAR LOT TURNS REALLY ON THIS ONE WORD, THE WORD UNDEVELOPED.
I BELIEVE THAT THE OWNER HAS MADE A CASE THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT SHE'S DONE.
[00:55:01]
WERE A DEFINITION OF UNDEVELOPED THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS EASY FOR US.I HAVE HEARD THE OWNER MAKE A CASE THAT BY REGULARLY CLEANING AND MAINTAINING AND MAKING THIS LOT ATTRACTIVE TO THE COMMUNITY, EVEN WITHOUT TAKING THE OTHER STEPS, SHE HAS DONE SOMETHING WHICH COULD CONSTITUTE, AGAIN, I KNOW WHO DOES OR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, WE DON'T HAVE DEFINITION, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE MIGHT CONSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW.
ANYONE ELSE? UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF, AND REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY, UM, I GUESS I VIEW IT AS A LOT DIFFERENT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID, YEAH, I WANT TO GET RID OF THAT DRIVEWAY VERSUS THE CITY UNILATERALLY DOING.
AND I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN WHATEVER THERE IS ABOUT WHY THE CITY DECIDED TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE AS SHE POINTED OUT THAT THAT'S, IF SHE EVER DOES DEVELOP IT, THAT JUST COST HER.
I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO DO DRIVEWAYS.
SO, UM, I'D BE INTERESTED IN THE ANSWER TO THAT AND, AND I PERSONALLY WOULD SUPPORT
I ALSO SAW MR. TOBIAS PUT HER FINGER IN THE AIR, SO SHE MAY HAVE MORE COMMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT THEY CONSIDER THAT.
SO AGAIN, I WAS SHOCKED TO FIND OUT.
NOW I'M FROM SOME WHITE VACANT LOT REGISTRY AND THIS IS MADE BY CITY OF LONG BEACH
MR. DEVA, CAN YOU READ WHAT THAT SAYS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR US.
YEAH, IT SAYS VIVIAN PARK, SIDNEY
AND YOU DID NOT MAKE THAT SIGN? NO, I DID REQUEST IT.
AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YEAR? PROBABLY I WAS VERY ACTIVE ON THE RGA BOARD IN CENTRAL PAC AROUND 2000, EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
SO IT WOULD'VE COME WITH THAT.
THIS PREDATED THE ROSA PARK PARK, BUT, WELL, IT ACTUALLY, I THINK IT KIND OF COINCIDED BECAUSE I WAS ADVOCATING FOR A PARKING PARK FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL.
UH, THEY WON IN A LAUNDROMAT AND I WAS WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER AT THAT TIME AND THROUGH OUR EFFORTS, D AND I, UM, IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, I THINK IT WAS IN CENTRAL PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING, THEY PRESENTED ME WITH A SIGN AND THEY SAID, WELL, YOU ALREADY HAVE A PARTY
AND I SAID, WELL, YEAH, BUT IT'S BEEN IN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW, FRIENDLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THAT.
UM, SO AGAIN, THIS WAS THE DESIGNATION.
I'M SORRY, I, I THINK GO AHEAD.
SO I THINK YOU CONSIDER THAT THE INITIAL PORTION, BUT I THINK IT DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS JUST A SIGN THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER.
UM, BECAUSE THERE IS NO RECORD THAT WOULD BEING A, A REGISTERED PARK.
SO THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A RECORD OF A REGISTERED PARK IF SHE WOULD HAVE TO
WE HAD TODAY WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OF RECORD FROM THE CITY THAT SAID THAT EVER NO RECORD RECOGNIZED PARK THAT WOULD APPROVED.
AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE PICTURES OF CEREMONIES OR SOMETHING WHERE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT DONE AS WELL AS TAKING THE LIABILITY THAT IT COMES WITH PART THAT'S HER NAME.
THERE IS SOME LIABILITY EVEN WHEN SHE WOULD MENTION THAT SHE WANTED TO BECAUSE THAT SHE SAID SHE WANTED THE LIABILITY BECAUSE
WE HAVE HOMELESS PEOPLE STILL LIABILITY COMES TO WHAT HAPPENS ON THE PROPERTY.
SO AS OF NOW, WE DO NOT HAVE A RECORD THAT HE MAY LEGITIMATE CITY.
I THINK, AND I THINK I, THE, THE COMMISSION IS PROBABLY LOOKING AT, THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT DEFINITELY NEED TO BE I DO HAVE DRAFTED.
YEAH, I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT ABOUT THAT.
CAN YOU TELL US WHO PROVIDED ONE, WHO PROVIDED YOU THAT SIGN? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AND TWO DOES THE SIGN THE NAME ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S AT HE'S TODAY? UM, I STILL HAVE THIS ON, I HAVEN'T, IT, IT'S NOT ON A POST BECAUSE I'D HAVE TO GET IT OPPOSED TO PUT IT ON.
UM, I WANNA SAY IT PROBABLY WAS GIVEN TO ME EITHER WHEN I WAS ON THE RDA BOARD OR MAYBE CENTRAL PROJECT AREA, ONE OF THOSE TWO, BECAUSE WE WERE DEALING PRIMARILY WITH ALLEVIATION, YOU KNOW, THE RDA BOARD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
SO AT THAT TIME, THIS WAS IN 2000, WE WERE DEALING WITH ISSUES AND THAT WHEN THE CITY BOUGHT UP A LOT OF VACANT LAND AND A LOT OF LAND THAT WAS BLIGHTED AND PROPERTY WAS JUST BLIGHTED TO WELL REDEVELOP IT AND THEN GOVERNOR BROWN, SO DECIDED WE DIDN'T WANT REDEVELOP AGENCIES TO EXIST ANYMORE.
[01:00:02]
Y WENT AWAY, I THINK IN 2005 WAS LITTLEBUT YOU SAY MS. STEIN WAS NOT POSTED ON THE PROPERTY WHEN WE RECEIVED IT OR THAT IT'S SINCE BEEN TAKEN THAT IT WAS NOT POSTED.
IT WAS GIVEN TO ME AND I WAS THAT I WAS TOLD THAT IF I WANTED THEM THE CITY TO POST IT, I'M LIKE, I, I'M DO THIS, I, THEY WOULD'VE POSTED IT, BUT I NEVER POSTED IT.
I TOOK IT AS JUST SORT OF AN HONORARY TYPE THING FOR THE WORK I WAS DOING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? UM, I GUESS I HAVE ONE MORE GUESSING FOR STAFF.
THE WORD UNDEVELOPED IS NOT DEFINED PART OF THE DEFINITION OF VACANT FROM THE
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DEFINITION IS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON IT, IF IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
UM, GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A DEFINITION SOMEWHERE UNDEVELOPED? AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT? UM, AND HOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD APPLY IN A INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL AREA BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT HAVE RESIDENCES THERE.
SO YOU'RE ASKING MS. SO I'M CLEAR IF THERE IS A DEFINITION OF UNDEVELOPED.
YES, NO, HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CODE.
IT'S SECTION 21.1 5.790, WHICH WILL BE TWO THREE OR IS PLEASE 21.1 5.790.
DEVELOPMENT LETTER A MEANS ONE, THE DIVISION OF A PARCEL OF LAND INTO TWO OR MORE PARCELS.
TWO, THE CONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION CONVERSION, STRUCTURAL OPERAT, STRUCTURAL ALTERATION, RELOCATION OR ENLARGEMENT OF ANY STRUCTURE.
THREE, ANY MINING, EXCAVATION, LANDFILL OR LAND DISTURBANCE OR FOUR, ANY USE OR EXTENSION OF USE OF THE LAND B.
THIS DEFINITION INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO ONE SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION MAP THAT COMMENCING WITH SECTION 6 6 4 1 0, THE GOVERNMENT CODE TWO, ANY OTHER DIVISION OF LAND INCLUDING LOT SPLITS EXCEPT FOR LAND DIVISION IS BROUGHT ABOUT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND BY A PUBLIC AGENCY FOR PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USE.
THREE, CHANGE IN THE INTENSITY OF USE OF WATER OR OF ACCESS THERE TOO FOR CONSTRUCTION RECONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION OR ALTERATION OF THE SIZE OF ANY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ANY FACILITY OF ANY PRIVATE, PUBLIC OR MUNICIPAL UTILITY.
AND FIVE, THE REMOVAL OR HARVESTING OF MAJOR VEGETATION OTHER THAN FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, HEALTH HARVESTING AND TIMBER OPERATIONS, WHICH ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TIMBER HARVESTING PLAN SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE CYBER NEEDLING FOREST PRACTICE ACT OF 1973 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 4 5 1, 1.
AND FINALLY C AS USED IN THIS SECTION STRUCTURE INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY BUILDING ROAD PIPE, BLOOM, CONDUIT SITE AND AQUEDUCT TELEPHONE LINE AND ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINE.
THAT'S THE END OF THE SECTION.
LET ME TAKE YOU BACK STEP IF I CAN.
UM, THE FIRST D WE LET USE FOR EXTENSION OF THE LAND, WE HAVE A UNDER DEVELOPMENT NUMBER FOUR, WHICH STATES ANY USE OR EXTENSION OF USE OF THE LAND.
AND I I DID NOT HEAR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT LIST.
UH, OR BUILDING A HOME SPECIFICALLY.
UM, AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IF MS. TOBIAS WANTED TO PUT SOLAR PANELS ON THAT LOT TO FEED YOUR HOUSE, UM, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD MEET THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND SOLAR PANELS GENERALLY HAVE SOMEWHAT FAVORED STATUS ON CALIFORNIA LAW.
UM, COULD EVEN MAKE IT A SOLAR GAZEBO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH I MENTIONED EARLIER, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING IN THAT DEFINITION WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S NOT DEVELOPMENT.
THE SOLAR PANEL OR THE PLACEBO WITH THE SOLAR PANEL WOULD MEET THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THOSE ARE ACCESSORY USES AND AS I MENTIONED PRIOR, WE ONLY ALLOW ACCESSORY USES WITH A PRIMARY USE, WHICH IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.
WE MAKE THE ASSUMPTION IF THE UNDEVELOPED AND ALSO BE USED
[01:05:01]
FOR EXCHANGE, UH, WITH THE WORDI TAKE WHAT'S IN HERE AND WE CODE.
SO I WE DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND I'M, I'M STILL CONFUSED UNDER ITEM NUMBER FOUR, E LAND.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL, BUT WOULDN'T PLACING A GAZEBO ON A PROPERTY BE A USE OF THE LAND? EVEN IF IT IS NOT THE PARTICULAR DEFINITION THAT YOU DESCRIBED? WE WOULD LOOK, WE WOULD SEE THE GAZEBO REALIZE THAT IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE AND IT WOULD NOT, IT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER OUR PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE ZONING OF THIS PARTICULAR.
IT MIGHT HYPOTHETICALLY IF IT MIGHT, HYPOTHETICALLY IF IT WERE PERMITTED CONSTITUTE A USER OR EXTENSION LAND, BUT IT WOULD NOT RECEIVE A PERMIT OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
I'M GOING TO DENY THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.
AND I THINK IF THERE ARE, ARE THERE ANY REBUTTALS FROM EITHER PARTY? OKAY, THEN WE'RE NOW GONNA MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SEEING NO ONE WITH A HAND UP.
UM, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE CITY ATTORNEY, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT A YES VOTE MEANS? WHAT A NO VOTE MEANS, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO GRANT CURRENTLY THE, THE MOTION IS TO RECEIVE AND REPORT, RECEIVE THE SPREADING DOCUMENTATION TO THE RECORD, UH, CONCLUDE THAT YOU TO GRANT THE
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S THAT TWO THE RIGHT NOW THE, THE MOTION, WHAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO CONFIRM THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UM, MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE VACANT LOCKED THAT, THAT FELT WAS THE
SO IT'S TO GRANT THE APPEAL, BUT THEN THERE'S GOING TO NEED TO BE SOME CHANGES TO THAT PARTICULAR MOTION IN ORDER TO, TO MAKE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION
THE FACT, OKAY, SO IF WE WERE TO VOTE YES, WHAT DOES A YES VOTE MEAN? SO IT WOULD, THE APPEAL IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, OF THE CURRENT DETERMINATION BY THE STAFF THAT THIS IS A VACANT LIE AND IS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE
THAT MEANS, UM, I BELIEVE I CAN REFER TO THE AMENDMENT.
OKAY, YES, IT SATISFIES WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THE AMENDMENT.
UM, AND I'VE WRITTEN DOWN THE NOTES HERE.
THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION INTO THE RECORD.
UM, INCLUDE THE HEARING AND GRANT, THE APPELLANTS AND APPEAL, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
UM, BUT THEN GOING ON AFTER LONG BEACH CA 9 0 1 3, UM, WE FURTHER DETERMINES THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION, DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION.
AND THEN IN THE LAST LINE,
CORRECT? THE, AND I SHOULD PROBABLY HAND THIS TO THE ATTORNEY, BUT I SURE, HANG ON.
HASN'T BEEN ACCEPTED YET, HASN'T AMENDMENT.
SO I WAS THINKING IT MIGHT BE EASIER IN TERMS OF GRANT, THE BALANCE APPEAL AND DENY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INSTEAD OF THREE THAT BE CLEANER IN TERMS. SURE.
SO IT WOULD BE TO GRANT THE BALANCE APPEAL AND DENY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED MEETS THE DEFINITION, BLAH, BLAH BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
[01:10:01]
THE LAST LINE THERE, THEN IT WOULD NEED TO STATE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT RIGHT.RIGHT NOW THOUGH, THERE IS ALSO ORIGINAL MOTION IS THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S NOT IN REASONABLE DISPUTE AT THIS POINT.
SO THE, THE FINDINGS ARE GONNA HAVE TO BE
I'M STILL A BIT BEFUDDLED THOUGH IN TERMS OF, IN PART TO THE ASSERT SCRIPT.
IF WE'RE VOTING ON THIS MOTION CALLED BE IT A
HAVING SAID THAT, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IF WE GRANT THE MOTION, WE ARE CONSIDERING THE OWNER NOT LIABLE EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE
BUT AS LONG AS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS AND YES VOTE MEANS YOU'RE GRANTING HER APPEAL.
A NO VOTE MEANS WE ARE NOT MADAME CLERK, PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE MEMBER.
ENRIQUE MEMBER WHO? I'M SORRY.
AS A MEMBER OF A BODY, YOU DO HAVE AN AUTHORITY.
UM, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE CAN HAVE A YES OR NO THAT IT PASSES.
SO ABSTAINING IS USUALLY IF THERE'S LIKE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UM, YOU HAVE A, AN A RIGHT TO, AS A MEMBER OF HIS BODY TO DO A, A VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I KNOW AND I CAN EXPLAIN WHY I, UH,
I MEAN I THINK THE PROBLEM I, THERE'S SEVERAL PROBLEMS. SO I'M ASSUMING IF THIS PASSES, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THEN GOING TO DIRECT US THAT WE HAVE DONE THE INADEQUATE JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY.
UM, IT ALSO HAS SOME POTENTIAL TO BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
IT ALSO HAS THE POTENTIAL THAT IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS THE CITY WILL ISSUE ANOTHER NOTICE.
VIOLATION FAILING PAY FEES AND DUTIES AGAIN.
SO WHEN IT'S TIME FOR VOTING, THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION.
I KNOW IT'S MY MOTION AND I THINK TO HEART WHAT YOU WERE SAYING AND, AND I WANNA MAKE A STATEMENT BEFORE I MAKE MY YES VOTE, WHICH IS THAT IT GOES BACK TO THE FACT THAT I CANNOT, I THINK I AM VOTING FOR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND THE INTENTION OF THE LAW.
AND I UNDERSTAND IT MIGHT STILL BE CONSIDERED A VACANT LAW, BUT I VOTE YES TO GIVING THE APPELLANTS GRANTED.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION?
MAY I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MANAGER'S REPORT? MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE MANAGER'S REPORT? AND A SECOND I, BECAUSE I WILL MOVE, BUT I'M ALSO WONDERING WHY THIS IS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE HE HAS A REPORT EVERY MONTH AND WE HAVE, HE HASN'T HAD ONE FOR THE LAST FEE REPORT.
OH, YOU DON'T HAVE A MONITORED REPORT TODAY? OH, WELL
[01:15:01]
THAT WAS EASY.ALRIGHT, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MANAGER'S REPORT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MANAGER'S REPORT JUST FOR CLARITY.
SO ARE WE WITHDRAWING ITEM THREE THEN? OR? I WOULD SAY REASONABLE, SO.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE NON AGENDA PUBLIC ITEMS. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SEEING NO ONE.
MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENT DATE? THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING DATE IS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.