Recommendation to declare ordinance amend the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.54 relating to hotel worker safety precautions, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
All right. Oh. Okay, now you guys are going to move on. I'm going to move up in I because in fact, I do have to leave in a few minutes because I'll move up to item 40 and can we please read that I didn't put. Yes. Now I'm going to go back because I have to leave. Can I move that up? Unless. Objection of the council. Yes, the chair can move the calendar. Okay. The projection. Okay. Please come up. Item number 40, she believes item. Item follows communication from city attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to hotel worker safety precautions. Read the first time and later What to do next. Regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Yes. We have a member first instance. Could I have a second, please? Fine. Okay. Yesterday. Any comments on this item? Public comment. I wanted to make a few changes to the proposed ordinance, if that's possible. Public can you want? Well, we'll let you go, that's for sure. That way they can comment on the proposed budget. For that purpose. Thank you. Very much. So there's just a few clarifying changes I would like to make, and I'm asking that through the process of inter delineation that we make the following changes on page one, subsection f. Hotel employer means a person who owns controls and or operates a hotel in the city of Long Beach and ask that everything after the word beach be deleted as not necessary. Under on page two. Item 5.54.030. Subsection A. I would ask that we add on the first section there, a hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other employees present. Regardless of job classification and at no cost to the hotel employee, it is recognized that b I would like to add it is recognized that because of the varying size and physical layout of each hotel, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels. And then to resume the rest of the paragraph under sub b. I'd like to add, after the hotel, employer must allow guests room doors to be left open during cleaning. I'd like to add nothing herein shall prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest. Room door closed. During cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. Under item B sub two a I'd like to add. After the word behavior for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel. Under Section 5.54.040. On page two of three, I'd like to remove the word immediately. The chapter shall be brought into full compliance with provisions of this chapter. And I'd like to add, not later than six months following the effective date of this chapter, to allow compliance by hotels of all sizes. Those were my only changes. Thank you. So with that, thank you. Vice Mayor. Yes. Councilwoman Margo. No comment. Okay, Count Councilwoman Gonzalez. Can we is there public comment that we. Can get when we go into that? Okay, fine. Could we have public comment on this item? You want to come and speak on it? Be. Good evening. My name is Gary Hetrick. I reside in the fourth district and I do have a few comments. I've actually got a letter on behalf of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community that I'd like to read into the record. I'm also on the steering committee of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community. Community, excuse me, Honorable Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, Long Beach, City Attorney Charles Park. And on. September 4th, our council members Pierce. Mungo Andrew Super. Now, Austin brought forward an item that directed the city attorney to draft a similar ordinance to measure WW, slated to be on the Long Beach November 2018 ballot. That includes a request for hotels to have safety panic buttons, but similarly ignores working conditions of workers by not limiting the square footage assigned to hotel workers . We believe this creates a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act. We have submitted a formal request to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practice Commission for further investigation and clarification regarding the Long Beach City Council. Item 8-0797 and its conflict of interests with the Long Beach Council item Agenda Item Resolution 8-0118. We believe that this undermines the efforts and hard work of major WW proponents 46,000 plus voters and residents of the city of Long Beach. We are clear that these efforts are put forth to confuse voters to the advantage of hoteliers and opposition to the measure. Additionally, it should be noted that these same five council members who were the same ones who opposed similar previous motions brought forward in the past year advocating for these safety measures. It was made clear to us that we could not count on our city council to protect Long Beach hotel workers due to this measure. WW As set forth on August 17, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 18 Dash 0118 for the placement of Measure WW on the November 2018 ballot measure. WW, if approved by the voters, would require a hotel in the city of Long Beach. Of 50 or more rooms to supply hotel employees who work in guest rooms without hotel employees. Present with an electronic contact contact device for summoning unseen assistants and reporting threatening conduct absent from tonight's proposed ordinance. However, our measure WW provisions that hotels and business lobbying groups disagree with most venomously. The proposed ordinance does not include a proposed excuse me a provision requiring hotels to post a notice in guest rooms, advising guests that hotel employees have panic buttons and are protected under the law. The proposed ordinance does not include protections against inhumane workloads or mandatory overtime. The proposed ordinance does not include robust enforcement and anti retaliation provisions that major WW does. Again, we believe this creates a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act with grave concern. The Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community. Thank you. Thank you very much. The aim of public comment on this item. And we move back to the diocese. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you. So I still have the same concerns as I did last time relative to timing the process. I spoke with Charlie today about legal implications that we had talked about. And you'd met and I was on the in the understanding that when we had brought this when this was brought forward last time, that we would receive a two from four some sort of memo that would talk whether it was no legal implications or legal implications, that it would at least address that question prior to this coming back. So can you address that city attorney? After our conversation, I'm been able to watch the entire tape because it went on for quite a bit of time. But at some point, 7 hours and 42 minutes into the meeting, you had raised those questions. But the only report that was requested back at that time was the Economic Analysis Report. I believe we had asked about the Political Reform Act, and I had indicated I had just received the proposed ordinance on the Friday before and had not done any research on it. But I, I didn't know that there was a request for a two from four and I didn't see that in the in looking at that. And I asked Linda in my office to also look at the tape. If we missed that, I apologize. But we did not provide it to from four. We did do the legal research. We do not believe that this proposal before you this evening is any way illegal or that the council is prohibited from moving forward. If it wishes to do that tonight, it does not violate the Political Reform Act. We did receive one letter from the law firm Democrat and Stamper and Hillsborough. We had two different conference calls with them, with their research analysts, their general counsel, and their outside counsel on September 7th and on September 19th, where we discussed in detail their letter and why we did not believe that it supported the conclusion that the Council could not move forward with that. So we did our own research on this and we believe that it is if both measures, if this is adopted and WW is adopted by the voters, they can coexist. It does not conflict if one passes and the other doesn't. Obviously then the other one could go forward. So with that said, we believe that if council wishes to move forward with this ordinance this evening, they can do so. Okay. Thank you. So I would like to I'm still I have a lot of questions. And I think another major topic that was brought forward was outreach to the motels that I don't believe has been done. I've connected with a few motels in my district and they've not even heard of this ordinance whatsoever. And so with that said, I'd like to make a motion for a substitute motion for a received file of this and for us to get additional information back, whether that's the legal implications in a two from four and then maybe even I'd like to hear from my colleagues as to what they'd like to do in terms of the business outreach and then even a fiscal impact study on this, as we talked about. Thank you, Councilwoman Pearce. Mm hmm. Yes, I think I still have the same concerns. As we previously had. I think that I did outreach to my businesses as well and received an email today that said that there had been no outreach done. So I'm curious from city manager, you know, as we stated the first time this came up, we did four years of outreach with big hotels that are very different from hotels of 50 rooms or less. And I feel very uncomfortable with continuing to move forward with an ordinance not, you know, a study, but an ordinance today that would dictate something for those hotels. 50 rooms are lost. So can somebody clarify where we're at with that community process? I'm. I'm not sure that we were directed to do a committee process that the staff level for hotels under 50. We had about a 30 minute conversation about it last time. I don't recall. I mean, I support the substitute motion on the floor. I think my position stands the same as previously. You know, approving of this ordinance today. I'm not comfortable with the fact that there's an OPC, you know, request for investigation on this. I'm not comfortable with the fact that our vote has already been used to politicize something that's on WW, which is what we said would happen. There's already a mail piece that's out there that's paid for by the chamber that's trying to interfere with something. It is not appropriate for us to be voting on this before the election. I'm all for waiting and getting some more information and engaging with constituents and businesses. I think that that is the responsible thing as elected officials to do. So I support this substitute motion. Thank you very much, Councilman Richardson, please. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So so we had a long back and forth about the process and not what we landed on was that this will come back after we conduct the public outreach. And I believe it was Councilwoman Mango's motion. And I, I, I offered a friendly to say no outreach during the election period, simply so that, you know, simply so that we maintain the integrity of the election that was happening. And then Councilwoman Mongo accepted that friendly and then I went back and watched the earlier today and that's exactly what happened. So, Mr. City attorney what what how did how is this in front of us today? Council member and members of the Council. I do not recall the direction to do public outreach prior to bring this back. There was a discussion with the mayor myself on that. This may come back. They were asked within 30 days and my recollection was there was discussion and I think John Keisler was talking about the study, the economic impact of that study and how whether they would be studying hotels with only 50 rooms or more. And I believe he said in the tape that the study may have some hotels in it with less than 50 rooms. So some of that impact analysis may be applicable. May not? I, I don't recall, but I do not recall any direction from the council that prior to bringing this ordinance back, that some sort of outreach and report be presented to the city council. That to me, that wasn't clear in the motion and on the vote. Five oh to bring this back to city council. So there was a bit of comment or back and forth about how long it would take you to bring this back. I believe he said something like, you know, 6 to 8 weeks it would take to bring this back. Then we had a conversation about we had a conversation about outreach and a number of councilmembers expressed their concern about, hey, this is very different than WWE because it impacts a lot of smaller businesses. And in general, I don't think people would have a problem with, hey, if this is the direction the voters want to go or the council wants to go. Sure, implement it citywide. But we should have a conversation with small businesses. And a lot of questions were raised about just, frankly, the political nature of this, given that there's an election, you know, two weeks from now with Major WW And already I received over the weekend a mail piece stating that the city council already has an ordinance on panic buttons. So this is the timing of this is exactly what we talked about. Political. It's political. And if we really want to do it, this is a sin. Since a sincere effort, then what we should do is do what the motion what my understanding of the motion was, and we can talk about that offline again. But my understanding was we are going to do outreach to the small businesses and we were going to begin the outreach after the election has come and gone and so and so and so that would be my sub so that we go back to what the original Y understanding was and if that wasn't what was what the motion was, if I misunderstood, if I have a misunderstanding, then that's what I would offer to the full council today that no, I don't think that we should receive a file. I think there's a lot of merit to the proposal, but it should happen after we've conducted outreach and that outreach should be in after the election period. And when I and to be more specific outreach to and there are there are groups that represent these smaller motels I know because they engaged with us when we initially talked about cracking down on nuisance motels. And so there are groups of stakeholders that probably we know who they are because we're engaging on the conversation with the motels right now. So we should engage with those groups in small and maybe talk with the different council members about the smaller motels in their district about implementation plans. I think in general, in general, it may not take a very long time if we're already engaged in these people to say here's our rollout plan. But I think it should be I think we should do everything we can to be sincere about moving this forward without any appearance of this being politically motivated whatsoever. And I am not making any implications to any city attorney, anybody on the council. I just think in an election season, that's when people are going to people going too soon. So my substitute substitute motion here is that we pick this up with outreach after the election period, a period of outreach to the small businesses. And then we bring that back and allow that to inform the crafting of this ordinance and bring that back to city council after that process has been concluded. And so that's my substitution. Danny in 1/2. Okay, fine. Yes, Councilman, you may know. Vice mayor, many of the concerns that were raised during the first discussion of this really raised eyebrows, especially in the sense of that this was item was being fast tracked. It was presented as a supplemental item or a holiday. And then we discuss it on a Tuesday following the supplemental introduction of this item. There was a lot of discussion, as the city attorney pointed out, there was a seven hour discussion that went into well into the morning and a lot of things were probably missed. And I don't blame either the city manager or the city attorney for probably missing some of those points that were made by Councilmembers Gonzales and Pierce in regards to doing outreach and getting a24 from Memo to the Council regarding some other background and some other discussions that we had that evening. It was a long night. And certainly reviewing the the video, you know, 7 hours, 7 hours the same. It's a full day of employment. So it's it very easily I could see where we could miss that. Or a lot of the questions that I had then are still not answered. And this is incomplete staff work as I as as I see it. And it's not complete. It's still had to work to be done. I support the motion currently on the floor because we do need to wait and we do. This has been totally, completely politicized. Like we didn't want it to be in the first place. And yet here we are and there's probably some more hit pieces out there talking about the city. You know Mr. Good. Mean the the problem is is that when you put a part of an item on supplemental. It's it's supposed to be something that's going to be well looked at. It's going to be studied. It's going to be properly reviewed and presented. And this item was not. And so I my position stands and I will be supporting the substitute item. Thank you, Congressman Young Councilman Austin. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Mayor. I'll keep my comments brief. As I know we have been going back and forth and debating this particular issue for now, well over a year. And this council and many members of this council have come under serious criticism from various organizations for not moving quick enough on this. I don't necessarily see this as a politicized issue. I'm going to be very quick when I do see it. It has been politicized. But in terms of this ordinance, this ordinance, I think reflects the will of this entire council, and that is to provide greater protections to the women in the hotel industry. And whether or not what happens on a ballot in a couple of weeks, this issue will provide an assurance that greater protections will will happen for for women who work in hotels, for any employees who work in our hotels in the city of Long Beach. And so I don't think I want to support the substitute motions. And for that reason, I won't. But I do have a question for the the the maker here Councilmember Price you in one of your your amendments to your original motion you struck the word from 5.54040. Any hotel containing 50 or more guests were suites rooms operating under existing business license. On the effective date of this chapter shall immediately be brought into full compliance with the chapter. You changed that to six months. Can you explain why? Sure. I did that to be consistent with our desire to have outreach, similar to what we did with the Styrofoam ban to give smaller businesses or hotels the opportunity to win, get educated, and then figure out because the cost is going to have to be borne by the motel. So they'll have to figure out what the costs are going to be an address to the ordinance. So that was the point of it to roll out implementation for the motels. So it was actually to do the outreach that's being recommended. Yes, because we don't currently have an ordinance to outreach to them on. But once we do, we'll have they'll have six months to get into compliance with the requirement that they have panic buttons and they'll have to evaluate what the fiscal impact is going to be for their own business, depending on the number of employees they have , that it's a broader category than just housekeepers pursuant to the amendment. Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. I was concerned about the shift from immediately to six months, but understanding the reasoning and then hearing comments from our colleagues, I think that makes good sense. Congresswoman Press? Yes. Could the city attorney read the changes again? I was trying to find the ordinance. You were making changes? There were a number of them. Yes, I can. The the first changes in 5.54.020 definitions and subsection F and the new language reads as follows Hotel employer. That means a person who owns controls and or operates a hotel in the city of Long Beach, period. The remainder of that definition is stricken. The next change is found at 5.54030. Subsection A After the first sentence, a new sentence is added that reads It is recognized that because of varying size and physical layout of each hotel comma, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels, period. The next change is added at 5.54030. Paragraph B, subsection one. A new sentence is added. Nothing here in shall prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest room door closed during cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. The next change is in that same section at paragraph two. Small a at the end of that sentence, they add the language for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel. Subsection 5.54040 Application to existing hotels. That first sentence strikes the word immediately and adds so that it reads I'm sorry. So that it reads any hotel containing 50 or more guest rooms or rooms operating under the existing business license on the effective date of this chapter shall be brought into compliance for compliance with the provisions of this chapter not later than six months following the effective date of this chapter. And that would conclude those reports. I would add that on that last change, if WW were to pass, as a number of people have said here, WW would take precedent over this ordinance. So anything that is in WW or is more restrictive as to the 50 or more hotels, that would be the applicable law as to the 50 or more hotels. Okay. Those I think those are my questions right now. All right. Thank you, counsel. Come to us and you through our council. Okay, Councilman. Okay, Mr. Attorney, going back to. So if we have a conflict that I believe one thing was voted on, but what was presented is something very different. What is what is the process to resolve that conflict? The you could do a motion at the evening of the meeting where the vote was five. Oh, you could have done a motion to reconsider that matter. No, I mean, that time has passed. If the process let me be more clear, if the process that I believe was voted on, if there's a conflict on how we interpret what happened, is there a path or a process to reconcile that? You could do a motion to rescind the previous action by the city council to reflect any changes the item and and or when you approve the minutes from that previous council meeting you could say that there's an error in the minutes or there was an error in the in the in the minutes as prepared. And you could do a motion to rescind the previous action by the city council and clarify it. Or you could clarify if you believe it was an error in the minutes of what was actually voted on. You could have that could be clarified at that time. And that we are here today. There's nothing you could you could put an item on the agenda to do to rescind the action taken on September 4th, or, as you've done in a subject, one of the substitute motions to receive and file this current item. And at that point, you're free to start again. You really haven't taken any action on the ordinance itself. Hmm. So really, there's no path beyond relitigating the conversation through re agenda, izing a motion to rescind that action. If we believe that what you have interpreted and what you've prepared is not consistent with the path that I thought the council voted on. So that's the only path to reconcile it? That's correct. It's a policy decision for the council that if what we brought before you and what you have before you this evening is not what you asked for, then you can vote to send us back, to change it, to receive and file it to do whatever it is you'd like to do that. Next question is there. So in crafting this ordinance, was this done internally or was this was this was a consultant hired on this? How was this crafted? This was done by one of the attorneys in my office. Okay. So it was crafted internally. Was any language in this ordinance lifted from the ordinances on the ballot? The answer to that is yes. We tried to, in the definitions and in the body of the language, to look at the proposed measure that is on the ballot, so that in the event that both of these passed, we could be consistent with our interpretation and and with the operation of it. Okay. Was has industry at all at any level of the industry? Have they been consulted on this? We have had conversations with, yes, hotel representatives. And as I mentioned earlier, individuals from Unite here and their law firm. So. So. And when did that outreach take place? As I indicated, we got a we received a letter from the law firm. The date of the letter is. September 12th. And on September we had a meeting with them on actually September 7th before their letter. And on September 19th after their letter. Okay. So September 12th and September 19th. And then this was crafted in those subsequent weeks, obviously to be be placed on the agenda. So this was had to be completed and then go through a review process and and then the noticing to go on the agenda. Right. That's correct. We because of the meeting was dark last week. It probably would have been ready for last week, but we weren't ready before that time. Okay. So this was drafted in about two weeks then. If we were we spoke with them about a month ago. This was drafted in two weeks. Yeah. The ordinance had been drafted and was being reviewed. Yes. Okay. So how long does it normally take to craft ordinances of its nature? That's impossible to answer. Tell me what the ordinance the marijuana ordinance took as years. Other ordinances take us a week. Yeah. I mean, this is like lightning speed. I mean, I've never seen an ordinance. And this. This ordinance is almost. Every council meeting. And this ordinance isn't that complicated. And it's four pages. Yeah, well, I don't know. I think, you know, we worked on a motel ordinance for human trafficking and conversions and all that, and it's been it's been well over a year, and I haven't seen an ordinance come back. It just it just seems to me that this came came it was developed fairly quickly. And I really wonder what the urgency was, because I didn't hear any motion, anything, any language in the motion that said expedite. Actually, there was conversation during the meeting between the mayor and there was an expectation that this would come back within 30 days. And I was saying I didn't know whether we could do it within 30 days. It's now 49 days after the request to prepare. So there was also conversation about waiting until we had outreach done after the election cycle. So how do we determine which comments we include and how we consider what we receive from the council and which comments we don't? The comments that were made, if they're not part of the motion, they remain comments and questions unless there is a direct request for that to be included or to be part of the motion. So while there was, as I think Councilmember Urunga mentioned, there was extended discussion on this item. I believe at the end of the day, the motion that passed five zero was to bring this back and there was no at least I wasn't aware and I wouldn't be doing the outreach study anyway, but I didn't hear that as part of the motion. And if I missed it, I apologize. But I certainly did not hear that. You have a copy of the motion. Is that available? Yes, it was a second substitute motion was made by Councilmember Mongeau, seconded by Councilmember Price to approve the recommendation as amended with a one year implementation period and remove recommendation for the motion carried by the following vote. Price. Supernormal Mungo Andrews and Austin. Yes. Absent Gonzales, Pierce, Suranga and Richardson. So there was so there was no no direction in that motion to expedite it and have it done in two weeks then. I just read the motion. Okay. Okay. Right. And then so in terms of in terms of the ordinance that's here and then what's going on the ballot in November in general, would you say that it's better or worse to have a little bit more time to see what the rules of the lay of the land or the law of the land is? If that if that happens in two weeks, we know with the law of the land. Is this the process you prefer to move forward? You know, in general is our city attorney is our elected city attorney. I would like for you to have a you know, a position on how you'd prefer our laws of our city to be created. And it just seems that this has been rushed a bit. And I just wonder if you didn't have direction from the council to expedite. Is this what you prefer to do? There's a lot of things probably I don't prefer to do, but this isn't this isn't this isn't political on my part. I was asked to prepare a motion. I an ordinance. I prepare the ordinance and brought it back if if there's the will of the council to adopt it. The timing of that is I'm not going to play games on the clock. If it's ready, I bring it back. If I could point out that one of the motions made that evening, but then there was a second substitute motion. The substitute motion was to spend 60 days doing outreach, feasibility study for hotels under 50 rooms and request city attorney to use language currently in WWE and apply it to hotels under 50 rooms. That motion was made by Pearce, Councilmember Pearce and seconded by Councilmember Urunga. That motion failed. The substitute substitute motion was what was passed. So there was no request for outreach in the substitute substitute. Okay. And so my next question. Councilwoman Price, is there a copy of all those editions? There were. I tried with my highlighter when he read them off to try to keep up, but they came out pretty quick. Is there a copy, though, somewhere? No. The amendment? Yeah. Is there. Is it written anywhere? I'd like to. Okay. So I'm going to say I'm sorry I missed I missed probably the first few. So unless you want to like. Maybe we go through them again. I'd like to actually. Share that always some additional time. Why not? Okay. All right. Well. Then you can tell us some stories. Anything. Let's do it. All right. Okay. So what was the first one? I think the question would be directed to the city of Fallujah. And what was the first one? The first I missed like the first three when you read them on. The first change that I have in. Is that under section 5.54020 definitions, paragraph F Hotel employer. The new language will read Hotel Employer means a person who owns controls and or operator of a hotel in the city of Long Beach, period. The remainder of that definition to be stricken. Why was it why? Why was it included and why was it stricken? Was the impetus for that? I have no idea. He'll have to ask the maker of the motion. Miss Price. I'm sorry. Councilman Richardson. You cannot ask me questions as if I am your witness in a case that's not pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order. It is, if you'd like to vote, if. The chair would like to allow it. Okay, so I'm going to ask you to. Vote against it if you don't understand it. Well, I'd have an opportunity to discuss it if the counts will be reasonable enough for us to have some time to actually deal with this. But we have to deal with it tonight. We're going to go through that grueling process of dealing with it tonight. All right. So so what it said was hotel employer means anyone who owns controls and operates a hotel in the city of Long Beach. But it struck out or a person who owns controls or operates any contract leased or sublet premises in connect to or operated injunction with the hotel's purpose or person, other than that hotel employee who provides services at that hotel. That seems like a lot of legal clarification. And what I don't want to do is strike it. If that somehow creates a loophole for people to somehow say that this doesn't apply to me as a hotel employer. So maybe, maybe, maybe one way to go about this is why was that extra language included? Mr. City Attorney. That language was included to include subcontractors, and it's similar, if not identical, to the language that is in W.W.. Okay. So that that's language that came from WWE. Okay. Could it be in a situation where there's that would create a conflict between WWE on this if both of them passed? No. Okay. All right. What was the next one? The next added a sentence and per in subsection 5.540300. Paragraph A. After the first sentence, the sentence that is added reads as follows. It is recognized that because of varying size and physical layout of each hotel comma, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels, period. So what will be the impact legally from adding that line? What does that what does that mean? I mean, some. So that doesn't need to be the same panic button, same device at each hotel. That's correct. That there would be some ability for the hotels to have whatever is appropriate for the different size and layout. So may have something more akin to a radio that wouldn't be applicable in other hotels. Right. Makes sense. So. Okay. That's good. What's the next one? The next one is in the same section, paragraph bb1 adds the sentence. Nothing here in show prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest room door closed during cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. Okay. And. And that seems like it makes sense to me. I just wonder if this was some of the if this was motivated by any of the input from the the outreach or I just wonder if it if this is like informed by a hotel employees experience or is it the hotel employers preference? I'm just curious. That's not something you can answer. That's correct. But my interpretation of that is it does provide some flexibility for the hotel employee. If this is a room where there's it's directly accessible to the outside and they felt safer keeping a close, this would allow them to do it. Okay. So and and what was the next. I believe I have the next one. Can you remind me what the next one was? Yes. The next one is in the same section, paragraph two. So A and that's since they're adding language at the end of that sentence to say for after or threatening behavior for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel. Further clarifying how long they could be reassigned. Understood. Understood. Okay. And so and now a question for you about implementation. So this goes to a first reading than a second reading and then the process of improvement. What is your understanding on that process of implementation? Because you said in the last motion there was a year. Process. What does that actually look like? Well, I think there's two questions in there. The first is, is that if this were to pass this evening, you would have the first reading. The next reading would occur at your next regularly scheduled council meeting, which I believe is in two weeks. And then 31 days after the mayor signs it, the ordinance would go into effect at that time based upon the change in language in 5.5 for the hotels, 50 or more would be brought into compliance. They would have six months to come into compliance with the effective date of the chapter, and those hotel rooms with 50 or less rooms would have up to 12 months to come into compliance with this ordinance. Okay. All right. I understand that, but I'd like to amend my my motion to say that, like a like a two from four in addition to this, that outlines what that implementation looks like. And I'd like to understand if there is an opportunity to because we're going to be doing work with with nuisance motels in the city. Is there an opportunity to find some efficiencies in how we conduct outreach to the small to the small, you know, small operators? Because if we're telling them, hey, we have a vision for what a modern motel looks like in our city, it should be consistent with our safety standards. I consider this a safety standard as well as all of our nuisance abatement, anti-human trafficking standards, all those things we're already engaging on so well. So what would be the proper way to do that? Should we just include it in the motion to include a two from four? Or is there some additional work that needs to be done to make sure that those efforts are aligned in some way? Yes, I think you could request the city manager, whoever this will be assigned to for implementation of this ordinance, would then be charged with notification and letting these folks know that this new law has been passed by the Council and business license could do outreach and and discussions with them. And I think they already do so. And there's the task force that talks about the hotel issues that you mentioned. Who who would take the would which department would take the lead on this outreach. So if this is a change in operation of a business, this would likely be a notification from business licensing as to a change in status. Okay. Understood. And the last thing I'll say is it seems like the motion in front of us, it seems like the motion in front of us says that we vote on this tonight. And then in two weeks we have the second reading and then a month for the mayor to to sign it. And then the outreach would be would begin. And I'm sorry, correction. The motion that's before me right now is a substitute substitute on the floor. I understand. And then the substitute substitute would say essentially that that process would just be pushed back for two weeks. So they're relatively the same, with the exception of what I just added about outlining that process. So so frankly, they seem very similar to me. So they seem very similar to me. The motions now they've been explained. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please, Councilwoman Rice. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Richardson and I do it while you read me the the changes. I do appreciate some of the questions that were asked. And it reminded me of some of the other questions that I wanted to follow through on. It looks like by reading the ordinance that it does include subcontractor workers. Is that correct? City attorney does not at this time as amended. Okay. And I know I'm not putting you on trial, Councilmember Price, but I do want to ask if there's a reason for not including subcontracted workers, because we know that that is a very large percentage of employees in the hotel industry. I think I've made my amendments clear. Thank you. Okay. So I will just note that many hotels in our city use subcontracted workers for entire departments, sometimes housekeeping. And so while we could pass this and we could pat ourselves on the back and say we passed something, if a hotel has an entire department that has subcontracted housekeepers, like many of the hotels in the city, we are actually not doing what we will say we will do. This also does not include the retaliation part. Is that correct? City Attorney That is correct. Okay. So I will be brief in saying that we can arm our housekeepers with panic buttons, but if they use them and they get retaliated against, they are no use to them. One of the conversations that we have had many times is Why do women not speak out? Why do women not break their silence? Why do housekeepers not go to their bosses and is because they do not have protection from retaliation? And that is something we have seen in our hotels in the city. So, again, we can pass this ordinance tonight, but if there's not a protection for retaliation, we are not doing our housekeepers any good. I have two other questions, particularly around public records request. What's the city's policy on Paris? What's the timeline that we typically get those back? So each period is different. The statutory requirement is that we respond within ten days of whether or not there are documents to produce. We had the ability to ask for an extension to determine whether or not there are documents that are available to produce, and then the peer statute says you have a reasonable amount of time to produce those. So some things go very quickly. If it's an easily identified document, we find it, we tell them we have it, and we sometimes produce it all within those ten days. Some praise take us months and months and months, if not years, to produce over a year, probably not several years, but at least over 12 months sometimes. If not years, 12 months. Can you give me an example of a PR that would take 12 months if it's a PR about emails? We got asked for any and all documents one time related to litigation on anything dealing with PCBs that the city has ever done and any water and and any data we have back to the 1930. So that took over a year, I'm guessing. So something along those lines. So a letter came into my. To my attention that there was a PR done on September 7th in regards to this item with entities related to the Long Beach Area, Chamber of Commerce staff, affiliates or agents including but not limited to attorneys. Long Beach Police Department and Affiliates. California Hotel and Lodging Association. Its staff. Affiliates or agents including but not limited to attorneys. Long Beach Hospitality Alliance. Its top affiliates or agents including but not limited to attorneys. Any third party. Any members of a Long Beach City staff, including city manager's office, city attorney's office and city clerk's office. How long do you think it will take for us to get that PR back before the people that requested this? I don't really have an estimate on time. So we get about 3500 press requests a year, and so staff do as best as we can to respond to each one of those periods. Some are quick, some take longer. I don't have an estimate on that one. I'm not aware of that one. Okay. So I think that my points that I wanted to make tonight before this vote happened was that I do feel unlike some of my council colleagues that this is political and the fact that the timing is not being negotiated at all, the fact that we're not adding third parties that are in there is political. The fact that there is not a retaliation clause is political. And I would love to know if in between the last time this council item came forward and now if we've had any conversations with the lobbyist or businesses that represent hotels of 15, 50 rooms or more as a an opportunity for them to use this. So it's very you know, I had hoped that reason would have allowed us to have this conversation after the election so that we could all feel better and we can make that clear to our constituents. And it's just pretty disheartening that we can't come together as a council to do something as simple as wait two weeks. Thank you. Comes from New England. Thank you, Mayor. At the beginning of this item here, the councilmember from the third district made some amendments to this ordinance. In the past, when we talked about amendments to any ordinances that would basically restart the clock. That is not the case in this situation here. I'm sorry. I didn't. I'm sorry. In prior discussions with about ordinances, when we have an ordinance brought me before us either for our first or second reading and there were additions or changes made to that ordinance, it would basically trigger a restart or re discussion or new a new amendment coming in to the city council with these amended motions or changes to an ordinance. I don't hear that happening here. Is there a reason for that? Yes, Councilmember. And you are correct. When there is a substantive change that the public would not be aware of, then we would say that you have to start the clock over, start first, reading again. The item this evening and the changes, as I understand them, are in early delineations and changes to the language that exist so that the public is on notice of every said. There's no new sections being added. They're not changing the overall sections. They've changed some timing. But we believe these changes could be made this evening and you could have first reading this evening if the council so desires. Okay, so if today's a first reading, then they will come back to the city council at at a later date for a final adoption. Who would come back for second reading? I believe it's the 13th. The workload dark next week and dark on the Tuesday for the election, so that following Tuesday it would come back to the council for second reading. So if we still had some concerns on the 13th about this ordinance, as there is worry with the changes and the amendments that are there, can we still introduce other concerns that we might want to add or make other changes to the ordinance at that time? Yes, absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. The impact analysis, it is dated October 11th. And can we can someone walk through that? Because although it's it's discussing the hotel ordinance that is on the ballot, I think it's pertinent to this discussion overall because it it goes over the impact analysis economically for us here in Long Beach and then also goes through methodology. And so I'd like us to just sort of walk through that a bit and in our findings and all of that because it just came to us in a two from four version. Well, I will do my best. So we if you remember, the city council requested to do a impact analysis and that the scope of which was sort of spelled out here on the council floor. And we did our best to implement that through a group called Bay Economics. It's somebody we have used in the past, as we have looked particularly about any hotel incentives to be able to bring high scale hotels into our city. And so the city council asked for it to be done in about 30 days. That was at its August 7th meeting. We reported back at that 30 day mark about where we were and quickly engaged by it ended up taking us about. 60 days to do. That was for the methodology. It was really turned over to Bay. We gave them the scope of work. They interviewed a number of stakeholders from large hotels, small hotels, medium hotels. It was really focused. On the measure. It wasn't focused on this particular item, but rather on the initiative ordinance that was brought to us to both understand the the scope of it, the financial impact primarily to the city. In order to understand that financial impact, we needed to understand the impact of the various provisions on the hotels themselves. I concluded that some of the provisions would have very little impact or no impact, and it has financial conclusions which were very difficult to put into real dollars, especially in the short term, but did have some conclusions about the potential impact on hotels that have not yet decided to be constructed in Long Beach. They're under the entitlement phase but have not pulled the trigger to actually begin construction. It interviewed some of the, you know, samples, and there were confidential interviews of small, medium and large hotels, as well as the CVB, as well as Unite Here for to be able to get labor perspective. And finally, it looked at various other similar ordinances that were done in other cities to try to understand their experience of the implementation of the ordinance. And then that entirety of the report was presented to you and the public on October 11th via memo. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you going over that a little bit. Okay. So with that and this is my main issue with this is that we we don't even have obviously WWE on the ballot. We didn't even have an ordinance that came back and we did a study which I think is fine. We did that. It was very in-depth. It was a third party and now we have this motel ordinance in front of us with absolutely no study. No information, no economics. We don't know. No business outreach and different from the polystyrene. And I will make that distinction. We did do outreach with polystyrene. In fact, myself, I went with my office to every single business improvement district to talk about polystyrene. So there's a difference in that. In addition, and I want to ask our city attorney this question when when the when the polystyrene styrene ordinance came before us, I believe there were a few amendments that were to be made. I think that was on timing. And you had mentioned that it would start over the clock. So are you saying now the amendments made by council member. Price would not start the clock over. I. If I recall correctly. Seems very there seemed very stark to not do that. If I recall correctly. I don't know what changes you're referring to on the polystyrene, so I don't have that in front of me. These changes and why we don't think they start the clock is it's it gives the hotels more time rather than less time. So it is it from that perspective, they have additional time to do that so that it's more favorable to the. And we did that with polystyrene as well. And I believe that I'm not sure what we do with polystyrene. I don't have it for me. So it was a I believe at one and it was a we I think we had like a one year period and then we moved it to 18 months. And that started. You said that. We would have to start over the clock. Is that what I'm getting? I don't recall. I have to go back and look at the minutes from that meeting. Okay. So you're just saying now. So I just. So I'm clear. We're not starting over. She's going to go in first reading. Whatever happens tonight, they will move forward. That's correct. That this if the council approves this this evening, this would be first reading. Second reading would be November 13th. Additional changes could be made there that could start the clock over if additional changes are substantive and then depending on how the council decides to vote. Okay. I think everything else has been mentioned. The last thing I will just continue to to harp on is the just impact analysis. And I don't know if there's been any thought about that. Knowing that this is going to be a major impact, whatever happens. On the election with the election or even aside from that? Okay. I had one other just clarification, because we didn't take a two thirds vote to rearrange this agenda item. Correct. It doesn't require a two thirds vote to rearrange the agenda item. I thought it did because. This does not take the council and the chair can change the agenda unless and I mentioned this prior to the start of this, unless there is objection from the council hearing. None. He moved it forward. If there is objection and it's a motion in second and a simple majority can move this forward. Okay. Well, I didn't hear him call any. Point of order in that sense. Okay. Well, I think those are all of my questions. I think on the substitute substitute. I heard that. Thank you. Appreciate that. On the substitute substitute motion, I certainly will support that, given the additional amendments that Councilmember Richardson included. And we will go from there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I have nothing. I'm ready to vote. Let's call for the vote. So who vote? I ask to come comments before. Public comment has already been asked for. Yes, it's already been asked for. On the substantive surface to substance. This vote is on the substitute substitute motion to write requested to from for in the implementation to outreach to small businesses and bring back after the election. Point of order is it since this a different motion than the main motion? Does it require new public comment. Or does not question? Okay. All right. Don't try. That's right. We just spent 5 hours. On shaky. Vote. Motion. Motion feels. Good. But the next vote would be on the substitute motion to receive and file. Cosby, Bill Richardson. Motion fails for five. We are now on the main motion as amended by the Council member from the third District. QUESTION Cannot an amendment to this is there? Is that appropriate? Not at this time. We've friendly member. It's not. Appropriate. You could certainly ask for a friendly amendment and. They have the option saying yes or no. Right. That's correct. I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that we still get the outline to the council, the two from form, what the implementation looks like and and ways that we can integrate both. The Nuisance Motel ordinance outreach efforts with this effort. I declined that at this time, but I look forward to having that come back as an agenda item on its own at a future meeting. All right. And we're voting on the name of. Of up voting on the main issue. It kills. Me when. A word. Really? Are you allowed to abstain? There should be a basis for the abstention. You know. Yeah. Took the point of order. Okay. It passed. We move on now. No. Motion carries five zero. Thank you. Now we'll start our hearing now. So the presentations. Coming to the. Commission, please.