Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 10.24.078 to prohibit parking of oversized and recreational vehicles on City rights-of-way within residential neighborhoods; and, amending LBMC Section 10.24.078 relating to the oversized and recreational vehicle parking permit process.  (Citywide)
Okay. Thank you. We're now going to hear those. It's going to take the council requests. And we had a request to hear item 16 at the top of the agenda. So we do. 16, please. Item 16 is a report from Public Works, recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to prohibit parking of oversize and recreational vehicles on city right away within residential neighborhoods citywide. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Is there a staff report on this item? Yes, Mayor. Council members, we have our public works director Craig Beck and also our traffic engineer, Eric with Strom. So Craig. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mayor, senior council members were pleased to be before you this evening to try to bring forward an item that had originally been been requested back in October of 2016. At that time, there was concern about some of the RV parking in many of our parking impacted communities and neighborhoods. Staff spent a lot of time researching what other jurisdictions are doing and what would fit in Long Beach. By uncovering that work, we we found that that the current the way that the municipal code is currently written is a little bit confusing and contradictory. So sometime in March of 2017, we provided a memo, a staff report to this council detailing some of the the conflicts that we see in the code and some recommendations that staff believe they would bring forward to the full body for consideration. So what we have before you this evening is a recommendation for council's consideration. And I'm going to ask the city's traffic engineer, Eric Woodson, to go through that presentation. Eric. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. If I get the presentation brought up. So start off quickly just with. The definition of an oversize vehicle in the Long Beach municipal code. Vehicle exceeding. 85 inches in height or 80 inches in width or. Longer than 20 feet. If there is. A trailer or objects on the trailer, all those features are included within those dimensions. Some of the current issues we face with oversize vehicles are parking impacts, especially in parking impacted residential neighborhoods, visual blight, safety and sanitation concerns, potential citations, issues at driveways, alleys and intersections, and then trash and debris from vehicles left and the right away . There's also concern with Long Beach Municipal Code and the California vehicle code being somewhat contradictory in their requirements. And then oversize vehicle restrictions are not employed uniformly across the city. They're implemented on a case by case basis. So staffers researched ten municipalities within the vicinity of Long Beach to see what each of their restrictions and regulations call for. We looked at vehicle dimensions. Issuance, number of permits issued annually, and also also duration of the permits. So based on the review of those of other jurisdictions and our own recommendations and discussion, we recommend change in the overall length of the oversize vehicle minimum from 28 to 22 feet, excluding pickup sport utility vehicles, prohibiting the parking of oversize vehicles in residential neighborhoods . And any vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods on private property would need to be behind the gate of current zoning requirements. The exception to parking in a residential neighborhood. Would be through the use. Of permits. Maximum issuance of permits would. Be for. 72 hours and 20 permits would be available annually. These products are currently available online, so we continue with the current online system. Other suggested changes to the code, consolidating oversight of vehicle restrictions and permit issuance to the city. Traffic Engineer requiring parking prohibition signs be posted at all city entrance roadways along the city perimeter and freeway off ramps and allowing parking to continue in certain commercial industrial areas, areas on a case by case basis based on approval of the city traffic engineer. Next steps for this process. Amend the musical code to include the suggested oversize vehicle changes and post signs prohibiting oversize vehicle parking at city entrances. Include a mailer in the utility bills of residences and then post on the website and social media to alert residents of the new policy and then meet with the Coastal Commission to discuss the ordinance and draft language and then submit the ordinance to the Coastal Commission for Certification. This will be followed by a public hearing held by the Coastal Commission. The fiscal impact of this change would be the cost to for city staff, city crews to install the science courses estimated at $18,000. Complaints would be a complaint based. Enforcement enforcements and additional staff are proposed and it would be expanding the current online permitting system. Happy to take any questions at this time. Thank you. Let me go back to Councilman Price and please, if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. So, first of all, a big thanks to staff for doing an extensive research project to get this item to the place where it is today. I really appreciate that. And I also appreciate that you looked at cities that are within the region that are similar to us in size, might be larger, might be smaller. But that gives us a sense of what other cities that are in the region are doing. And it's it's obvious to me that other cities do have some more consistency than we do in terms of RV regulations. I want to start with fiscal impact. You mentioned the $18,000 for the if we had a consistent ordinance that affected the entire city. But if we were to continue doing individual neighborhoods and individual signage, what would that cost look like? So let me let me try to address that. Currently, what we do is we we approach any restrictions on parking oversize vehicles on a case by case basis. And many times we will either receive a request by a council district or a community group that are citing particular impacts. We'll go out and analyze those particular streets and then we have to put up signs on that street. And where it becomes real challenging is the cost for maintaining those signs. So similar to the experience that we had when we went through updating our street, sweeping changes, if we were to do that on every street in the city on a case by case basis. And I would anticipate we would continue to receive more and more complaints about this. You know, it would be potentially a seven figure number. Okay. And over the years, in terms of the city's history with this topic, has this been an issue that's been a consistent source of complaint in regards to constituent issues? Yes, I know that the council offices have received many complaints, but as a staff have received those as well. And many times we're asked to go out and enforce codes that are confusing and conflicting, and it makes it challenging on the enforcement side. One of the things that we're asking for this evening is, is to really update the municipal code, to make sure that it's clear on what is being proposed and that enforcement of whatever action council takes this evening is easier to do, not only from an education perspective with the community, but as a staff perspective in enforcing that . Okay. Couple of questions on the recommendations. I know that the recommendation is for 22 feet. Can you give me any sort of justification for that number? So the current dimension is is 20 feet. And looking at neighboring cities, many of the neighboring cities did have a vehicle, oversize vehicle length limit. Of 22 feet. So we felt that going to that dimension seem reasonable. This would exempt some of the pickup trucks and sport utility. Vehicles that are on the market today. Great. We also have 72 hours as a maximum for the permits. What's that based on. The 72 hours? Again, we're looking at consistency with neighboring jurisdictions and also vehicles are currently required to be moved after a 72 hour period. So we felt that was also consistent as well. Now, would there be an opportunity if a resident had a need for additional time to request an extension of that 72 hour period? Would there be any sort of a process by which they could petition for an extension? So the recommendations before you do not currently include that kind of an option? I think that that is reasonable. And if council were to take that action this evening, certainly staff would be able to implement it. Okay. And then how about the 20 permits per year? What is that number based on? We took a look at what some of the neighboring cities had, and we also looked at what the current Long Beach municipal code had. Currently, we had 12 permits for a two day duration each, which allowed for 24, basically 24 days of oversize vehicle parking. So we felt that we wanted to be a little more consistent or, you know, increase that number. So we increased it to a three day or 72 hour limit and going to 20 instances per year. What total does that give us in terms of the number of days that you can have an RV parked outside of your home? That would give us a total of 60, 60 days per year. Right. So I would like I have made a motion, but I would like to be a little bit more specific about the motion. I'd like to make a motion and ask my colleagues to support staff's recommendation with with the following caveats that the number of hours that the 72 hour permit could be extended on a case by case basis at the discretion of our Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Bureau. And the 20 permits per year could also be evaluated for an extension on a case by case basis through our traffic bureau, so that if there is an unusual circumstance or something that requires special consideration, the discretion would be within your department. That would be my recommendation. The other final changes I would make from staff's recommendation is I would recommend that I'd ask my colleagues to. Support. Approving this, but not requiring that the oversize vehicle that's parked on residential private property be behind a gate because some homes don't already have a gate. And we don't want people to take on an additional cost. And also putting a gate in front of your property may change the character and the curb appeal of the property. So with those three changes to the recommendations, I move this recommendation forward. Q There's a motion, there's a second by Councilwoman, Mango, Councilwoman Mongo. Mayor, may I interrupt? Just not sure. I'm sorry. On the third. Recommendation or amendment that currently is the gate requirement is currently part of the zoning. Ordinance. So if that's adopted tonight, then it would have to go back to Planning. Commission before we could come back with a revised ordinance just for timing purposes. Thank you. That I would I would be okay with that as the maker of the motion. I'd like to hear from my colleagues if someone would like to make a friendly that's different from that recommendation. But I think allowing that flexibility for our constituents is important. And I might add that our office has received over the last year or so, hundreds of emails in support of adopting a city wide, consistent approach to handling RVs. Because when the police do get called out, it's incredibly confusing what ordinances and what place on what street. So I'd ask for my colleagues support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, go. Yes. I have a lot of the same notes as Councilman Price, specifically with the gate, because there are a lot of communities, even within the districts that are historical districts, that they cannot aggregate actually. And so we have one of those in our area. We prefer that it stay not behind the gate. So I'm really supportive of that. I also want to thank the staff. This was a lot of work and it's been a long path to get here. We really appreciate that. Under bullet three, on page two of the item, it talks about the length being from 20 to 22 feet. It has the ability to exclude pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. I want to take a minute to thank in our our newsletter, we encourage people to make public comment via the E comment. And we get these comments and we get them in advance of the council meeting. And so we can read them and really talk with our staff and the city staff about them if we have the time. And so one of the concerns was that there are some commuter vehicles that are currently in use, specifically the Mercedes sprinter van, which is a seven passenger commuter vehicle that is used by a lot of the van pools. And so my only concern would be if there were vehicles that on a case by case basis fit within this guideline. And with the 20 to 22 feet, I hope that this would not be a problem anymore, but that we would somehow work through what that would look like. There just has to be a process by which an exception can be made. And so with that, and I really want to thank the neighbors who supported a lot of this throughout the last several months. There is also a concern about consecutive use of the permits. So if I applied for a 72 hour permit under the current regulations, would you theoretically be able to stack those four consecutive days? Currently the way the musical codes are written is that there has to be a 24 hour waiting period before refiling for the permit. Perfect. That's wonderful. Thank you very much. I hope my colleagues will support this important item. Thank you. Clinton reports. Yes. I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this. And thanks to city staff, I know back in in October, I had many unanswered questions around the legality enforcement and the costs. I appreciate everybody's work to resolve these. I want to make clear tonight that this is not banning people from sleeping in their cars and their actions tonight should not be seen as a way to open the doors for more vehicular living restrictions. So I have a couple of questions for staff just to make sure that's clear before we move forward. I know that previously we talked about the code that we should amend was 10.2 4.078. And I want to make clear that we are still not able to enforce that part in our code and that we would be abiding by that. Mr. West. So we would be amending. 10.2, 4.078 and 10.2. For oh in the code. And can you clarify for everybody that that, in fact, does not make it where we will give people tickets for sleeping in their cars? Should they be sleeping in a VW van that doesn't have a permit in a residential area? Those sections of the code don't address those topics. That's true. Sorry. I have a list of codes in front of me. Let me take out the code question and let me rephrase it. Previously, when we were here in October, the concern was that passing this would ban would mean that we were going to be banning people from sleeping in their cars and enforcing that ban. The concern I had at that time is that we could not enforce that ban because of other laws on the books. I know that the city attorney, Charlie Parker, answered a lot of these questions for me last time. So perhaps the city attorney could help me out here. As proposed today, that doesn't address the other laws that. You're discussing. Or referring. To. So I guess my question it it is a bit broad. On your question. And so the Volkswagen van may be under 22 feet and it wouldn't be subject to this. So that may not be a good example. But we are only proposing to amend the two sections. For you this evening and not addressing the other issues that you've raised in. Those laws. This would have no impact. On those laws. That is what I was looking for. Thank you. I did want to clarify for everybody that we wanted at the same time to bring forward a a transitional parking policy that we've been working with churches over the last several months. Our health department, as well as our other staff have been working on that. So just quickly, I'd like to ask if Mr. Modica could possibly give just a brief update for folks on the point of this questioning is just to make clear to everybody that has called my office with concerns that this is addressing homelessness, that in fact, we have another program that will possibly be voted on in the near future. Thank you. Councilmember, I believe you're referring to the safe parking program that the council has asked city staff to look into. But we were asked to look into is is there an ability to go through a process to. Allow. People who do currently sleep in their car. Who are homeless, to to have a space to do that within parking lots? We've been doing the research on that and we've. Produced a memo. Fairly detailed from Health and Human Services outlining some cities that do that, some of the challenges that come along with that and some of that, some of the possible benefits as well, as well as the costs. I do want to point out, though, in our in our review, what we really learned was that people in RVs and people sleeping in cars are two different populations. So people that are in there and have recreational vehicles don't consider themselves homeless for the most part where and they have different standards of living and different incomes than people living in cars who tend to be lower income and do consider themselves homeless. So those are two different populations. We provided that report back to council with the cost impact and so that, you know, that's something the council wants to look at. We can discuss that further, but that's different than what's happening here tonight. Great. Thank you, Mr. Modica. We will. We are working with several nonprofits right now, and we'll hopefully bring that back in the next month or two. So I just want to clarify that there's another process for that. And then my last question is on the location of these vehicles, I just want to get clarity that the item that was before us talks about commercial industrial corridors and that that is still the case, even with Councilmember Price's amendments to a case by case basis that we're still looking at that in those corridors. Can you clarify and define the process for identifying those corridors? It's challenging for me to know if they're not in my district and I'm doing a vote that says I'm going to push them all to somebody else's districts. That's not an impact that I necessarily want to be on the hook for. Councilmember I think what we would do is look at the zoning code. So I think there was a presentation earlier today on the general plan update. And so certainly within the city's general plan, there's designations on what areas of the city are considered residential and what areas of the city are considered commercial and industrial. And so that's where we would start, is in those neighborhoods that are designated as residential. Great. Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate everybody's work on this. I'll be supporting this item. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next up is Councilmember Ringa. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank staff for their work. Good staff work on this. There's been a lot of complaints that I have been getting also regarding not only RV but boats, kind of boats that are all over the place. And I think that that is the most prevailing complaint that I got in in neighborhoods around my area. So I'm glad that there is a item in there that includes trailers and boats in regards to moving that. The other portion of it as well. When this came up a couple of months ago, obviously I was concerned about having a blanket ordinance that would cover this issue. But yet we have a big coastal area, coastal. His own that would not fit because of other communities up and down the coast who are trying to address this issue and have encountered some difficulty in being able to adopt an ordinance that would address people's access to the beach because of restrictive ordinances or vehicles being able to stay overnight or for a few days along the coast. So I do see that there is an item or bulletin here or at the end of saying that we are going to pursue Coastal Commission acceptance or at least a hearing with the Coastal Commission to address this ordinance and hopefully work something out between between the cities on beaches, LCP, local coastal plan and the ordinance. So I'm looking forward to that and having having this issue resolved because I think it's important. Thank you very much. Catherine and I will be supporting the. Motion Council in worship. Thank you. Thank you. I want to go back to one of the points made. If they can pull up slide five, I think I can explain some of the confusion on that item. That's possible. And because we've had inquiries at our office, let's see. And I think, right, if you look at the title, it says Recommended changes to the municipal code. Okay. Now go down to the bullet point about the fencing and we have some subject verb agreement disagreement here. So it is not a change. The title says changes and then down at that bullet point. But we're going to go with an existing. So that's where the confusion came from. So I think that's what we need to resolve that it was in the past it's been complaint driven. So nothing has changed to the city attorney's point that it would take a different change than what we can do here tonight to to do away with that. But that's where I believe all the increase to the officers came from. Secondly, to the point of the special circumstances where you have to extend the 72 hours, this has to be seamless because that might be a mechanical problem with the vehicle or something like that. So that shouldn't trigger the use of one of the special permits that has that 24 hour window. So I think that that's what my colleague, Councilwoman Price was was driving it. Finally, on the 22 foot distance, we would ask how that would be measured. And I don't think we have any patrol officers up here who are traffic enforcement officers. But I think you run the plate and the DMV record would give you the length of the vehicle. And that's we just have to I don't I'm not sure how it's done, but we have to determine that. Or else we have people getting out a tape measure every time they go out to look at one of these vehicles. But there's not necessarily agreement on the registration versus what the actual length of the vehicle is. So that's something I'd like to see staff address before we have problems moving forward. I think that's different naturally. Okay. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So my position is rather a little bit since the last time we had this conversation initially, you know, I, I said if someone has had their RV, has a had any issues neighborhood, sort of hasn't complained about it, then we should give that person a break. But in thinking about it, over the last few months, my district in particular, we border a number of different cities, Lakewood, who has a different policy than Bellflower Compton, Paramount. We bought all those cities, and I think it is clear that we have a very clear message on this policy. So I do support, you know, having, you know, one clear restriction across the city that that will be very clear to people who live along the borders as well. I think the permits online and free is good and renting an RV for the first time this past holiday, you know, between Christmas and New Year. And, you know, I kept it on my street for a couple of days before and a couple of days after. And I think I wouldn't want to have to take an additional step to go somewhere and get a permit, you know, while I'm coordinating vacation. So the fact that you can, you know, you can get it online is free. And how would this work? We just simply printed out online and posted. Okay. So print out online, print on dashboard. I think that's seamless. That's great. So good work on thinking that through. There's been a lot of chatter on next door and in the neighborhood associations about this concept of a sanctuary district. I've tried my best to try to refute this concept that it wasn't driven by city council or city staff. But can we can I just have city staff respond? Is there a proposal for a sanctuary district anywhere in town that says, Hey, our district is open for RVs and all the rest of them are closed? No. I think you can't get more clear than that. And then my final question is, and it might have been in the presentation, but how long until this is implemented should the city council adopt this? I'm going to let Mr. Beck respond. But if we add the aspect of going to the Planning Commission for. The gate issue, that could certainly. Add several months to the time before it comes back to the council. Okay. I'll just ask ask that, you know, once we get all everything worked out and we do have it ready to go for prime time, that we give a break to the people who, you know, we don't immediately start hammering people who take a minute to adjust to this. So we should have some some warmup grace period. So, you know, people who may not be too happy about this, we get a chance to kind of get in the warm up to it a little bit. So we should we should just, you know, think about our residents in that way. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. Great work to staff and great work to Councilmember Councilwoman Price on this item as well. I will be supportive here, but I do want to mention a few things that my colleagues have mentioned as well. And I look forward first, I look forward to the safe parking program that Councilmember Pearce is talking about because we can't talk about this issue, I feel, without addressing the fact that people are living in their RVs, and I think it is a real issue that has to be tackled and we have to figure out some way to tackle that. And although this doesn't address that specifically, I look forward to hearing more information from her office. Secondly, can you clarify I know that it is included in here as to the commercial use of oversize vehicles. For instance, in the first District, we have the Magnolia Industrial area who where many business owners have overnight vehicles and they have them there at two, three in the morning and they start, you know, at four in the morning. So can you just clarify for me how that would work into this ordinance? Councilmember. I think I think there's two ways to address your question. The first would be that generally in a municipal code, a vehicle has to be moved within a 72 hour period. Otherwise, it can be cited and potentially towed. So in a commercial zone such as Magnolia Industrial, we know that we have oversize vehicles that are used for commercial purpose, but those are being moved constantly. If there was a need to address parking issues, we would look at those particular areas on a case by case basis and devise an appropriate restriction based on the needs of that particular district. I think you're you're very familiar with the area in your district. And I think what we would look at is how if if restrictions were needed, how would they be addressed in MiG? Yes. And I'm wondering if there is a way it seems to me that it would be a case by case basis. But since areas like that are primarily like over 75% commercial, I'm wondering if we could maybe air towards the, you know, allowing the vehicles to be there a little bit longer because they are you know, there's no residential in the area. So I'm just wondering how that fits in. But of course, it's, you know, up to your discretion to to figure that out. And that should be fine. I just wanted to point that out. And then I think those are all the questions that I have, but I think this is a great item. I know many residents in the First District have had the same issues related to just overnight vehicles staying for, you know, significant amounts of time. So. Thanks so much for the work. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilman. Awesome. Thank you. And I think most of my concerns have been addressed by my colleagues. I didn't want some clarification on the the was it a substitute motion or the from Councilmember Price regarding a case by case basis? Can can we clarify with that which you actually met on that. An original motion. It's in the original motion so so in the staff report it says the currently currently the city approaches parking restrictions on a case by case basis. So in the original the motion basically it sounds like it does the same thing that we're currently doing. Well, no, I don't think so. I think right now we don't ban our RVs on every residential street. And with the passage of this, we would and then we would allow certain limits to how long RV can be parked outside of a residential in a residential neighborhood and the public right of way for a certain period of time. That particular aspect of the exemption would be subject to case by case determination at the discretion. So if they wanted beyond 72 hours or if they wanted more than 20 permits. So just as to those two areas. But but the idea of whether you can park your RV outside of your home would would be addressed through the change of the ordinance. Thank you for that clarification. And to staff, I think obviously, are we supporting this? I do recall having some some conversation when this item first came before us regarding RV being parked in commercial corridors and business or in impacting businesses. Does this particular item address that in any way? Councilmember Again, we're focused tonight on residential neighborhoods and communities, and then we would look at commercial areas and industrial areas on a case by case basis if a restriction was needed to be added in those those particular zones. Well, I certainly have heard enough from our residents to know that this is this is something that most of the residents in my district would see as something welcome. This is a welcome change. It provides uniform uniformity and clarity. And so I think staff has done a great job on that. I mentioned the commercial corridors because of the potential for the unintended consequences. And I do figure I do figure that we will be discussing that more in the future. So I'll be supportive tonight, but also be watching very skeptically about how those how this policy impacts our business districts as well. Thank you very much, Councilman. Councilman, Mongo. So one of the things that we don't want is for this to be delayed tonight. So I think that I'd like to offer a firmly back to your original motion where we pass this as written tonight and instruct the city manager, help me of what I can do on the gate so that it is a second degree thing, so that you'll bring this back right away as is. We'd still like to address the gate. Being a requirement. So tonight is a. Is. A consideration to request my office to prepare the ordinance as amended by the friendly that we would be going to Planning Commission to amend the zoning. Ordinance to remove the requirement. Of. Parking that it must be parked behind a gate. If you eliminate that third portion. Then we could. Create the ordinance. Bring it back. But you still have to. We'd have to do the signage before you could ever implemented. And we'd also need to go to a Coastal Commission and have Coastal Commission. Weigh in on either accepting it or proposing whatever changes they would. Propose to that before you could implement the ordinance. So having to go to the Planning Commission would not include a delay. Well, because of the. Others, I would say that it does. Include a delay. Of some amount of time. I know. So I'd like to ask that we take that component out and then maybe you and I can work on a separate item that we'll bring back to council immediately to ask the instruction to go to the Planning Commission, asking them to consider removing it. You could certainly go separately to have that item considered at a later date and would amend this. Ordinance if. It was passed almost. So, you know, do have. A. Dual track. Wonderful. Mr. Park. And hopefully, I think as the council process move forward in the other and the signage process, hopefully those two separate items align, you know, as we come out the gate certainly and as an ordinance could come back on a Tuesday after that process. Has happened with the commission. You could. Amanda. That's great. Wonderful. So is that accepted? Wonderful. Thank you. Okay. Next up out Councilmember Pearce. Okay. Let me try this one more time. Just to clarify for the record, as I mentioned, I had a long list of codes in front of me. So Mr. Parkin, the code that I was referring to is 10.18 .040, which we talked about at length whenever this was originally here, which says no person shall user occupy any recreational vehicle, trailer coach van or other vehicle or any public on any public street for human habitation or camping purposes. And when we are here back in October, we had a full conversation about how we don't enforce that because we're fearful that we would be sued for constitutional rights because other cities have been sued. And back in October, I had asked that we address that in our code. So will this policy could we use this opportunity now to remove that from our code since we're not enforcing it? You could add in in the staff report, I think in March of 17, that item was identified and addressed in the. Cases were cited. Okay. I'm not remembering seeing the cases. Well, I would like to ask if could make a friendly to include leaving that portion out. You know, so long as things are, people are getting their permits if they're in that 72 hour zone and they're at least abiding with the law if we're not enforcing it already, having policies on the books that we don't enforce, I'm certain that we didn't. That's okay. I'm not sure I understand what the request was. But let me just make it clear that this item tonight is limited to the issues presented, in my opinion, with what we've heard from residents about regarding traffic safety, visual blight, vehicle corridor obstructions, consistency throughout the state with having the same ordinance in place. I did not intend, nor am I prepared to intent, nor am I prepared to discuss and have received zero notice that we were going to be speaking about ordinances involving people sleeping in their vehicles and the legal parameters of such that it's just not on the agenda. And in my opinion, I think we're talking about two very different issues. And I think that the recommendation that's being brought forth by staff is really being brought forth as a cost savings to the city, as a consistency issue for the city. And I think to conclude that particular item by including issues of constitutionality of other ordinances would just really be out of scope with what this particular item is. So thank you for your comments, Councilwoman. I brought it back up because we had a full discussion about it last time not to try to slide something new. And we will be bringing back my colleagues and I will be bringing back the transitional parking. I'm comfortable with having that discussion with the transitional parking conversation, and I'll have comments with staff as well. I'll be supporting this tonight. I just wanted to make sure that any time that we have codes on our books that we're not enforcing that we've said that we're fearful of us being sued for, that we take the opportunities to address those because that seems like smart governance. So we'll bring it back at the time with the transitional parking, and I'll make sure that you and I have an opportunity to sit down and chat before then. That'd be great. Thank you. Well, there's a motion on a second on the floor. We also have public comment now, so please for comment. Come forward. They give you cookies the address the suggestion this in advance a couple times before in fact last week at the Mac committee and that commission. One of the things this city should take a look at is what other cities have their private organizations that are private companies that do it, but what they build and I'm thinking of that to PCH and Studebaker, the old tank farm, the old electric plants is to build and it doesn't have to be there. A three story, maybe four story, depending on the area it's in building in which people can store their boats on elevated platforms. What the paradigm is, if you have a boat, you call up the facility the night before and say, I want to come down and I'm going to pick up my boat and trailer at a certain time. The next day they arrive, they take it and go out and do it, whatever, and then they come back. So I think that's something we should take a look at. They're highly successful. They're operated. I've not personally been in any of them, but they're in the coastline of this state is inundated with those. And I think if we can put the word out and provide the areas to put them in, I think that would be great. And I again, as I say, it doesn't necessarily have to be close to the water if you've got some places that are up in the knees, Jesus, that doesn't that has the square footage where they can put that in. That would be great. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker Hi, I'm Anthony Cruz with the fifth district. I want to thank all the city council for bringing this item up and also other city leaders. And I'm hello, mayor. And it was I just want to say that I think this is very important. I mean, personally in our neighborhoods that are along especially along the park areas, we deal with a lot of RV issues and a lot looking at, you know, people sleeping in their vehicles. I understand that it is a touchy subject, but at the same time, you're looking at our these and like what one of the gentleman over here had brought up the issue that are not the issue, but the the fact that people in RV do not consider themselves homeless. All right. And I live in a pretty ideal neighborhood. Okay. And I love I love the district. But at the same time, you know, when you're living, you know, in your neighborhood and you're doing what you need to do to to to, you know, be neighborly and love, you know, the businesses and what's around there, you know , then you find these unintentional neighbors, you know, what I call curbside neighbors that are living, you know, in your street that just, you know, sometimes it's cool and a and they they they're there for the time being and they leave when they, you know, leave. But a lot of times they're staying there. They become an intentional neighborhood residents. You know, there's been issue with a couple of them that I have even seen suspicious activity where they come, you know, they have people coming in and out where, you know, they're doing some sort of deal. All right. And it's it's like that's not the neighborhood I'm living. And these people roll in with their wills, come in and and plant themselves. You know, I would like to see some special consideration as well, being in front of a park, you know, I mean, kind of considered like a beach because we're not Crystal Cove, this is not a campground. And to have all these RV constantly coming in and staying there for days, you know, it's a it gets pretty annoying. You know, I don't pay what I pay for my mortgage to open up my window and see our vehicle along my street, you know, there. And again, it is a, you know, only in America kind of problem. But at the same time, it is an issue that does actually affect my neighbors, myself and a lot of us that, you know, that live here as a motorcyclist. You know, also dealing with the safety issue. I see it all the time when I'm riding past RVs and what have your cars cannot see when they're backing out of the driveways. It's a it's also very unsafe, you know, anyways, I'm coming to an end. But at the same time, I just want to say I'm I'm for this. I hope that you guys would consider this and not add too many implementations that would, you know, give them still leeway and freedom to, you know, continue doing what they're doing. Again, I want to thank City Councilwoman Stacey Mongo for her support and help and her awesome staff. They're very patient and they've dealt with me. So I got to say, you know, kudos to you guys. Thank thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And Jenny Hall, back Salters and Belmont Shore. I want to thank Susie Price for all the work that she and her staff have done. On this because we brought it up multiple times and it's very important to a lot of people. So thank you. I just wanted to add a couple of things. That 72 hour criteria, you know, might be a good idea to get some guidelines written down about that, because I can just see, you know, people saying, well, my neighbor got an exemption. I didn't. You know, and so I think that it may not be need to need to be written into it's being approved, but at least there has to be something in writing maybe by the parking group as to what will be approved for an extension and what won't. The other I have a question or I'm not really familiar with this requirement about the gate and all. I just wouldn't want to see people now suddenly thinking that they can just have a 22 foot vehicle parked in a driveway. And then we're trying to back out of our driveway and our neighbor right next to us has this huge vehicle and we won't be able to see who's coming. We won't be able to see pedestrians, little kids. That could be a problem. I just want. To say also that I don't think our city streets are the place for camping or vehicle storage. Just to say that we've had multiple meetings with our police department and the they've said this and also the neighborhood. Watch. Group, one of the cornerstones of that is know your neighbors, know who lives on your street by name, know what their habits are and know what vehicles they have. And we really can't do that with a lot of strange vehicles parked all around our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, council members. My name is Sommer Temple and I am the owner of Downtempo, Storage and Long Beach Shoe Store. Mark here in Long Beach. My father, Dawn Temple, opened the first self-storage facility in the L.A. Basin right here in Long Beach. Nearly 50 years ago, the family, business and self-storage industry has been a part of my life since the day I was born, and I have watched it grow and developed over the course of my lifetime. Now, I'm not here tonight to tell you that you should or shouldn't pass this RV ordinance. I'm here as a business owner in this city who will be directly impacted and who is intimately involved in this industry. That correlates back to all of this. Right now in Southern California. RV Storage space is tight. RV RV Parking space availability, such as what our facility offers, is not just rare in our city, it's nonexistent. We are completely full, and yet we get 45 calls every day for people looking for RV parking storage. The closing of our tourist RV facility has trickled down to our city. We are getting phone calls from those displaced customers looking for places to store their ARVs boats and other vehicles because they have nowhere else to go. Shane Carson RV storage is being chipped away at as the also cemetery next door reclaims their land that they owned. We have a serious supply and demand issue in this city and surrounding issues surrounding cities. Excuse me. But as land is not becoming available to build Newport for storage facilities on at the same rate that we're losing storage facilities, another example of this of using RV storage spaces in Long Beach is our own facility at 3750 Spring Street at the April 11, 2017 City Council meeting. And sorry, last week that you granted Urban Development LLC the exclusive negotiating rights to develop land for absent that part of our company currently leases from from the airport commission. The person in question currently holds 79 spaces. We didn't analysts of these 79 spaces. Based on current addresses we have on file for them cross-reference them to the district lines and determined by each district the percentage of their costs constituents that would be left without RV parking if this goes through. I came here tonight because I do have concerns about what happens if the ordinance eventually comes to pass. Where can my 79 little customers and your constituents go to safely store their vehicles in the city? And I have to wonder, both sincerely and respectfully, how you can complement, how you can consider both banning RV parking in Long Beach and control at the same time, reducing the amount of RV spaces available here as well. I thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Angela Kimball. I live in the unincorporated county island area. I testified before you on this issue. I want to thank Susie Price for bringing us back to the council floor and discussing it. We recently enacted a similar ordinance in the unincorporated county island of Long Beach. It is working. It has been it is effective. There's some bumps in the road that, you know, have to be ironed out as some of the council members, I believe it was. Councilman Richardson said there was a grace period involved to kind of ease neighbors into the new policy. It's this has been a long time coming. It's been a as I said, it's been effective. Yes. RV storage is sometimes difficult to find in your own city, but there are spaces available. My family owns RV. We store it, we bought it. We understood we needed to store it and not impose that upon our neighbors. When we bring it in, we bring it in for 24 or 48 hours. Load it up, go have a great time. Come back, do the same thing. Get it out of the neighborhood. It doesn't belong on our public streets. Our public streets should not be a storage yard. That's the bottom line. It's a public safety issue. We've had people in the past in our community who've turned them into third, fourth and fifth bedrooms. They're living in them with water lines strung across the street, electrical lines strung across the sidewalks, and they tell their neighbors, tough. I have a neighbor who bought a home across the street a block away from me, and she said it was almost a deal breaker for them to buy that home with an RV parked out front where the neighbor had his nephew living in it. And then, of course, about a year later, he goes to sell his house and oh, lo and behold, he realizes, hey, it's not really a good marketing tool to have a 35 foot RV parked in front of your house. I'll go move it near the school so the kids can deal with it. Trying to cross going back and forth to Patrick Henry. Nice guy. But really, the bottom line is the nation's largest RV and camping organization, the Good Sam's Club, they've said it best. The residents want a long term solution to a decades long issue. The public streets are not a place to store your RV. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Ramon. The main thing that I wanted. To emphasize was the same as this the young lady. Who was here regarding Temple. I have a lot of people, friends that are in the storage area, and I just want to reiterate that they all they're all saying and there's like six of them that are saying that there's no room for ARVs in their storage facilities. Now, I hope that before we get going in, we do that there's some kind of a a look see in to see if there is some if this space is available for people to go, we are going to see escalated costs for sure, you know, to store their their vehicles. Another thing that I would like to mention is that it relates to to Jeannie and to Lena Gonzalez, the concerns they have for homeless. And I know we don't want to mix those issues, but how do we discern the two? If someone is is living in their RV and who isn't? We need to kind of have a rule on that, something that that coordinates that. Also I noticed that when we picked the the cities that are about our size. I think that's what somebody Susie Price said that those cities were different than the ones that the first responders were were had chosen for their examples. So I'm hoping that we're not cherry picking. I don't know if that's true or not. I know Eric. He's a good guy. He's not going to do that. But we should have a standard. If we're going to pick on, we're we're going to choose cities of the same size. Let's be standard and pick the let's be standard and pick the same cities instead of play that game. You know, the gate thing as far as as far as what Stacy Mungo has said, if you want to go that route, that's fine. But let's make sure that we give those guys a waiver who are in that area, you know, before implementation, till all that stuff goes that are in those areas. Um, also visit Vitter visitors that come in. I know people don't want to have all this stuff in vacation, but if somebody comes from another area and they just need a couple of days in that realm, in some area, whatever they are supposed to park it, I think we need to probably have a sign where they need to know. I mean, we're going to have the sign saying, you know, you can't park 72 hours, get a permit, but maybe even like an email or an address for them to go to get the permits to make it easier for someone who is who is trying to get a permit and trying to do things a legal way. So, I mean, I'm not going to say one way or another which way you should go, but these are just thoughts that I have. All right. But the next speaker, please. Hey. Good evening. I'm going to have the counter speakers. Listen, these are our last two speakers. Looks like a case of the gentleman in the church. The last one. Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for hearing my comment, Chris. Jake was from fifth district. I'm concerned about. So the gentleman in the red shirt was the last speaker before I cut off the speaker's list. The want to speak on this topic, sir? Okay. So you'll be the last speaker. That's the last speaker. Okay, then. Anyway, so I was concerned about separating the gate issue and I think there might be a timing. Issue that could come up. So is it that we'll see the gate issue reintroduced into this bill, you know, say a week from today or whatever, so that we could see that that would be part of it. Also, does the permit process allow you to take out multiple permits at the same time so that you can depart and arrive? And another concern would be for guests guest permits. Something that would allow them to, I guess, stay maybe move out of the way of the street sweeper and then come back. Right. It may not be practical if you have out-of-town guests and they have to leave for a day and then come back to another permit or something. Given the fact that they you can you can actually get a permit. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All those issues will be. We'll look at those. Okay. Next speaker. I repeat, with black votes matter. And one thing I was trying to find out, because I didn't really know what this agenda was all about. And I was listening as Rahm was speaking. And I remember another time Ramos speaking just like that. And you were joking, shucking and jiving, laughing. And he he got angry and he blasted you. And then he walked out angry. Now it was you work for we the people. You make money and you're the boss here and everything. But you work for us. So why don't you stop doing that? Every time he looked at you, you did. And then he has to look over Mr. Richardson, Mr. Austin, whoever, because you are joking. Now, this is only Republican, but you got to get your votes. Republicans, stop voting with these suckers. Now, listen, you got to be more respectful. Yeah, I think I thank you today for paying attention. They were respectful. Stop that. And what are you still doing here, Miss Karl Marx? I thought you was leaving. I'm done. Next speaker. My name is Sarah erm from Park Estates. Thank you, Susie, for doing this. We've been dealing with this issue for years. I've been there for five years and we've been struggling with the RV issues. It's temporary parking, temporary living. And we have it's an incessant problem. And I want to thank you very much for taking taking the bold steps to get this taken care of. Appreciate that. Just a couple of questions for the people that are visiting. How are they going to print. The the parking passes if they don't have a printer in their RV with them? There's got to be some way for them to print it. And the second would be, as I used to live in the neighborhood, that young or the young lady behind me over in the unincorporated Longreach area we have over there, we had issues or people that had limousine services, so they would drive their limos, their limos are their work and so they're parking their limos and they're definitely longer than 22 feet. And so how are those going to be addressed? Has there been any thought as to the impact that that's going to be on their livelihoods? Just just a question. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. In the last speaker, please. My name is Mark Levin. I live on Flint in the third district and I 100% support this as an RV owner. I keep my RV in storage. I'm responsible. I just want to I appreciate you bring it up to the two questions regarding the permitting process. I just want to would like some clarification that if you need an extra permit that it's seamless and not you don't have to jump through hoops. It's relatively easy to get like the first one. And then the second is the tow permit limit that would limit you to ten uses of your RV per year. It seems a little like some people use their RV several times a month. Some people use their RV for for sports, for their you know, for their kids. I just think ten uses is it might be a little light. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. I'm going to go back to Councilman Price, and I just want to add a short comment. Let me just first say to particularly Councilman Price and concern monger who have both worked on this, very supportive of this. And I just want to also just note and staff and I were discussing this when this issue came before the council, when I was on the council maybe five years ago or so, it was incredibly contentious and unorganized and unproductive process that ended up not going anywhere. And I think that getting to a point where I think the community has been heard and there's been comments and there's been a lot of work done by Councilman Price and Councilman Mongo. I know Councilmember and has been involved on this issue as well, I think is a testament to the hard work that's gone into getting here . It just didn't overnight happen. I think there's been a lot of conversations and a lot of community input on this process, and so I'm very thankful that this process has gone the way it has because the last time was one of the worst possible processes that I've seen since I was on the Council. And Mr. Russell knows exactly what I'm talking about because he was here, too. And it was it was terrible. So so thank you to everyone that's contributed to this. I want to just add, Mr. West, when we're working on the interface for the permits, I think I think you heard a lot tonight about ensuring that it's an interface that is easy to use and is not complex and is hopefully something that for residents that can easily, you know, do go through that permitting process online in a way that it's easy for them to do. So that would be great. Councilman Price. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. And a lot of my colleagues have of share the responsibility of how the item has come before us now, and their partnership has been really, really vital to the process. So it's really just definitely was a team effort. I will say that in regards to RV storage availability point, very well taken. My chief of staff, Jack Cunningham, did have an opportunity to make some calls today. So we know that there is RV availability in very short distance from the city of Long Beach, and Carson has lots of availability right now. So we called and confirmed it today, $130 a month. So if you need help with that or if you're a third district resident and you're concerned about that and that's causing you stress, please contact our office. We will help you do what we can to identify various RV sites. And the original item that I authored and brought in October had a list of storage facilities that you could also call. And at the time, several of those had vacancies as. Well, so we can send you that item or we can help put you in touch with an RV storage yard. So thank you to the residents who came out, and thank you for sharing with us the concerns you have in your community. And I'm glad that we were able to move something forward that addresses your concerns. Councilman Mongo. Yes. I also appreciate, Summer, that you came down for this today. I spoke to Marlene on Saturday, and I do my best within the legal authority to within what Charlie will allow us to share, update her as I can. And I know that you're running the organization right now, and I hope that we can have a better relationship. I know we have some distance in terms of mileage, but perhaps that we can can be on the same page a little bit more with that, because there are facilities even on Carson Avenue that do have availability and there is no intent to want to close down RV storage facilities. But we do need to explore all of our options and job creation within the boundaries of the city, and that process does have to go through certain steps along the way. So I appreciate your continued partnership. Great to see you and your your entire group here today to support and be here to voice your opinion. It's really valuable. And we appreciate you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion and a second and then Mr. City attorney will get to work on this. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. All that came for the item. We're going to be moving on just now. We're going to be doing a public comment. And then I'm going to take the two items on the farmers market and the urban ag item.