Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a citywide ordinance restricting oversized and recreational vehicles in residential and commercial corridors based on elements from the surrounding cities of Lakewood, Costa Mesa and Westminister like: • No RV shall be parked on any street or alley for more than 48 consecutive hours. • RVs and trailers not registered to a Long Beach address cannot park on streets without a daily temporary permit. • RVs registered to a Long Beach address may park on the block they are registered to for no more than 48 hours consecutively. • RVs may not be repark within one fifth of a mile from any prior permitted location within 24 hours. • Nonmotorized vehicles may be parked for the sole purpose of actively loading and unloading for a no more than 24 hours.
Great. Thank you. And now we're going to go to item 14, please. Communication from Councilwoman Price and Councilmember Supernova. Recommendation to request the city attorney to draft a citywide ordinance restricting oversize and recreational vehicles in residential and commercial corridors. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I have brought this is an item that I requested some information from. Over a year ago, I think, or close to a year ago. And we received a staff report in March of 2016 on this item. RV parking in residential areas and commercial corridors has presented major problems for residents and businesses. The biggest primary concern is some public health issues because we've had illegal dumping, trash and other items left behind from folks that are staying in RVs. And that has caused a detrimental impact to quality of life for a lot of residences. And the other problem that we've seen arise as a result of RV parking is that the size of the vehicles is such that when they're parked on a residential street or in close, close to intersections at busy commercial corridors, they are blocking the view or the view corridor for line of sight for traffic safety. That's presented a quite a number of issues for people who are looking to make traffic maneuvers in the roadway and their sight is obstructed by the RV vehicles. A number of cities we've done a lot of research and so has staff. A number of cities have restricted RV parking so that they cannot be parked on residential streets or commercial corridors and require that residents who wish to load or unload the vehicles obtain, you know, a permit so that they're able to do that in front of their homes, which is reasonable. We certainly want to make sure that people have access to their RV and are using their RV. But we don't want residential streets and commercial corridors to be parking spaces for RVs. They're not meant to be. They present all sorts of public health and other issues in terms of our communities. And so I'm asking my council colleagues to support me in restricting the parking of RV vehicles in residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. At this time, I'm not requesting that they be restricted in all of the city, but in residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors . I am open to hearing from my colleagues on any recommendations or comments that you may have in regards to this item, and very much willing to work with my colleagues in finding solutions to this that will work best for individual neighborhoods. Having said that, I note that the staff report indicated that we should have some consistency throughout the city because having a piecemeal approach, one is more costly to the city because of the signage that's required in terms of signage that has to go up different in different places throughout the city. And to having consistency in the city helps us be able to better monitor and enforce the ordinance. I did want to ask one question before I turn it over to my colleagues for their comments, and that is, is there a way to draft the ordinance, Mr.. City Attorney, such that placement of signage is not necessary so that we can I know that it's for us. If we were to do a consistent citywide ordinance, the cost is much less because we're talking about signage being placed possibly at the entry points of the city. Whereas if we do individual neighborhoods, we need different signage throughout the neighborhoods. Is there a way to draft the ordinance so that we are not incurring. That's a sign of signage. The cost of signage. It attempt to answer your question. I think currently the way the Long Beach Municipal Code is written, Section 10.24077 requires where posted no person or control the oversize vehicle is defined. And so the way the municipal code is written now we would need to post if you just wanted to do residential and commercial corridors, it would be street by street or you'd have to post those in order to enforce. The other option of a citywide is is also going to be expensive because you would have to post every entrance to the city of Long Beach and certain other cities have tried to do this and the courts have overturn their ordinance or not enforce the ordinance if they found they didn't properly document and post all of the entrances to the city. So it depending on what the direction is this evening, we'll certainly go take a look at that. And either we could bring it back or bring back a memo to the council describing the options and working with public works on what the appropriate or the associated costs with the posting would be. Sounds good, and it looks like they have an estimate of 100,000 if it was at the entry ways and $1,000,000 if it was in the individual neighborhoods. And I'm not sure how that estimate is, but I think if it was, you know, if you decided you only wanted certain residential and corridors and you. Continually added to those streets like we do other sections of our municipal code that costs would be incurred. As you added those streets, if you came out with a plan to do a number of streets, then obviously that cost would be associated with however many streets you do. As you phase it in kind of thing. Okay. But the question that I had is, is there a way to ward the ordinance or right now it says as posted, can we remove the terminology as posted and just prohibit the parking without parking without a posting requirement? No. Okay. Because the reason I asked that is because the memo from March indicated something, and I think I have it highlighted here. It says it says in discussions with the city attorney's office, there is concern that the current BMC requires that parking restrictions can only be enforced if signs stating the specific restrictions are posted. There's really no way to modify that. It would be any ordinance we'd have to have signage. That's correct. Under the vehicle code, the requires that our ordinance shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof have been placed. And the question is, do you place those at the entrances to the city or do you place them on the streets? And that's something that you would take a look at in the drafting. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I would like to hear from my comments on this again, on my comments my colleagues on on their comments on this. And and, of course, the public as we formulate our approach moving forward. So thank you. Thank you. Do we want to put any motions on the floor yet or not yet? Yes. I would make a motion to have the city attorney's office draft an ordinance restricting parking of. Oversize vehicles in residential corridors, residential communities and commercial corridors in the city of Long Beach. Okay. Should it turns out that all you need for that, for the motion? Yes. I believe if it's as stated here with these, it says like we would be looking at these other cities for comparable things and we would be also working with public works and streets to come up. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor. Not yet. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Can we. Is there a second? Okay, Councilman. Super now. Okay. I'm going to second to move this along, but I have a different approach to this. And I signed on with Councilwoman Pryce originally. My interest is the commercial corridors, and that's what we've received complaints on, not the residential areas. So how we've handled that so. Far, because as as Councilwoman Pryce mentioned, we started this a long time ago, a year ago. And so we've been placing individual signage at these kind of dangerous corridors. One is examining where it curves between Atherton and LASCARIS diagonal, where it was blocking the view. The the RVs are blocking the view of people coming out of the shopping center just because it's taken so long. We've expanded that to other streets and we're continuing to do that. We have requests in that's working for us, but it looks like we we could use, you know, something that's more comprehensive. But with that, I'd like to hear the public, because with any of these items, you know, it takes a while for the word to get out. I just realized that no one diligently, not everyone diligently reads my newsletter every Friday, which we've talked about this issue, but not everyone got the message. So I just like to get input before hear the public and maybe we'll come up with some type of hybrid here that that works moving forward. Next I have Councilmember Ranga and actually once again so ma'am, I got councilman council speaker. So just grab a seat and I'll call the public during public comment. Thank you so much, Councilmember Gringo. Thank you, Mayor. When I first read this request for a study on this and an ordinance, I had some things popped up right away. Because if we're talking about a citywide policy, equity, the the ramifications for Long Beach because we are a coastal city where Beach City and obviously implementing something citywide would affect those areas that are along the coastal zone, which means that we would have to look at other areas as well and differently because of the coastal zone. We would have to look at impacts with our local coastal plan, the LCP. It would require that we look at if we are going to implement something like this, that a lot of the coastal zone we will require. It would be the Coastal Commission would probably require a coastal development permit to do that. So there's a lot of other questions that this brings up that I don't think we've had properly reviewed as yet. And it's not within this this request here. So I would I would move that we probably move that that we receive and file this for the present time because of the uncertainties that it has, impacts on terms of the coastal areas. And we're not separating that out. And I don't think that we can at this at this point. And so I don't I don't I don't see where we have the feasibility of providing an ordinance that would address all the other issues that affect Long Beach as a whole, being a beach city. I understand that we could look at other. Neighboring cities and what they've done. However, they're not on the coast. We are. There is experiences also that I've had in the Coastal Commission that we've we've looked at these types of ordinances being put and they've all been rejected because of the fact that any, any changes would made for RV parking and other types of parking along the coast. It would limit access. And we're talking about access to the beach, not just to the parking lots and other areas along our coast. So it's incomplete. I'm not very I'm not very clear as to what we need to do with it. So I would move that we receive a file. Well, Counselor Rosetta is that I am making a substitution. Okay. I think that if you're going to do that, you have to process the stop or. Okay. Is there a second on that? Okay. That's the second on that camera. Go down the speakers speakers list. We have Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. Yeah. I feel like I have a lot of questions about this, both in regards to the coastal zone, but also especially on a day when we just had hours of testimony around homelessness. And we have 70% of our homeless people in L.A. County sleep outdoors. And there's a DOJ ruling, several DOJ rulings that says that unless we have adequate beds for our housing, for our homeless, that we cannot make it illegal for them to sleep in their cars or to do camping. And so I would have some questions for the city attorney about, you know, Jones versus L.A., Joyce versus the city and county of San Francisco and a number of other rulings that would put us at risk and ask the question if we would be at risk for a lawsuit if we did something like this when we didn't have adequate housing yet. So I think you raise a very good point and a very true concern that our office will have in drafting an ordinance regarding the RVs. And you have to truly separate the issue of homelessness and RV parking restrictions. You are correct that certain cities have had their RV ordinances overturned if they're used as a pretext to either punish or try and eliminate homeless. So so you're absolutely correct. The point that Councilmember Price made, though, is a valid point on line of sight. Other issues where you have oversize vehicles that create those type of issues, I think you can properly regulate, but you cannot use this ordinance. And as some of the comments that came in electronically on this ordinance were alluding to is they see it as a remedy to cure the homeless issue or folks that are living in their cars. So, yes, that is a concern that we would have to look at, as is the concern of the councilmember from the seventh District of the coastal zone. Um, we could certainly maybe come back with a report before an ordinance or a receiving file. We can we could work on something and bring something else back at a later date. But those are two very important issues that we would be looking at in crafting an ordinance that we believe would be enforceable for regulation of RV parking. Thank you. I mean, I think I would say, you know, if we received and filed this and came back with something that know was very clearly had protections for our coastline, that ensured that, you know, our homeless population was not going to be at risk, you know, that that I'd be open to a future conversation on that . But this right now, compared to the staff report, it seems like there's still a lot of inconsistencies. And so I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Thank you. I also would like to thank Councilman Price for bringing this forward. I have two business owners here from the west side. I think in the first district, what we've often dealt with are commercial corridors and having RVs block our places of business. And so that to me is a huge concern. And so I think I have a couple of questions. So when we talk about commercial corridors, is that defining a specific area or is that every commercial corridor in our city? I mean, is there a specific. That's a great question. And I would have to work with traffic engineers to talk about commercial corridors and how we would try and define that in an ordinance. So to be determined. Okay. That would be great because I would hope that it would mean everything. But who knows? It's a tough one, but okay, perfect. So we'll hopefully come back with that information. And then as far as signage, I think signage is important in this. I know it would be very costly, but perhaps we can phase it in starting with certain hotspot areas that are more liable to receive the RV oversize issue. That's just a thought. And then as far as differences in businesses and then residents, we have different perspectives because businesses I know there are some areas where in the Westside Industrial area where there's a need for oversize parking on the street. And so we've had issues where we've cited some of these business owners, but yet they are you know, they're parking there at 2 a.m. and they need to park their you know, they're parking there for, you know, a little a short time. But they're, you know, they're employee parking. And although that area doesn't have any residences, maybe there's some sort of, uh, I don't know what we're able to do and if we've done anything that has a perfect balance because that's an issue. And I know we're going to hear it on the West Side. Definitely. I'd also like to see if it is possible in our language because. In this is as to whether we can include something that states that these vehicles cannot block places of business because it doesn't state that specifically. And I think that is a huge hindrance, whether you're oversize. RV Whatever the case, I think blocking a business and I think I've heard from our business owners quite often that it's just it's really an impact to them. So I don't know. Can we include that language in here? Charlie Vice Mayor Councilmember Gonzalez Currently we're talking to the motion of the seventh District to receive and file. If we get back to the original motion, I think there's a lot of different options that we can talk about. And depending on the direction of the council, we can research in and look at what our options would be for the council to consider an ordinance if they desire. Okay, great. So yeah, I was talking to the original motion, but yes, I think I would be supportive of the original motion because I agree. I think the two issues need to be separated. I think we'll have a larger discussion in November. We're going to have a more comprehensive homeless report coming out. And I think at that time we can discuss issues related to RV. Are these people sleeping in cars, which I think is a huge issue. We talked about it at length today, but is when it comes to RV, it's an issue regardless whether it's east side, west side, north. I think it needs to be handled and we haven't really figured that out yet. So I would be supportive of doing a substitute substitute motion that would revert back to the original motion. Basically, everything Councilwoman Price entailed in here. But I would like, as I mentioned, clarification on commercial corridors, possibly an idea on phasing in signage, whether we can block places of business or we can include not to block places of business in finding some sort of balance between business and residential. Preferences. Thank you. Councilman, could you, uh. Do you mind plugging in your. But. It's not going up on my screen for whatever reason, but. I'm not getting anything. Did you really did you really push it? Okay. It just went up, actually, so. Okay, great. We have a we have a substitute. Substitute and a second and essentially is to take councilman precious motion, but then to add what Councilman Gonzales talked about as part of the discussion. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So let me just go down, Constable Austin. Thank you. So I do have a few questions for clarity, because now we're speaking to the substitute substitute motion. The I understand the intent is to to address concerns and traffic safety in our residential communities and on our commercial corridors. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And. I'm sorry. For me, it's councilwoman. I'm Tony. Gonzales, the substitute. Councilmember. Gonzalez and Councilmember Price. Yes. And then the. The. The enforcement of the ordinance. Is that purely predicated on there being signage? Yes. In order to enforce any type of ordinance like this, the vehicle code and our municipal code require proper notification to the residents or the owners of the RV. And so Councilmember Price threw a couple of numbers out. And I guess that was based on a too far from the signage being from 100000 to $1000000. Is that correct? Yes. City staff put together just a order of magnitude cost. We haven't done a tremendous amount of analysis, but we estimated if we were to sign the entrance ways and again, we'd have to define those entrance ways of about approximately $100,000. If you're looking at actually. Signing streets and we would do that fairly liberally under the million dollars, we'd be actually looking at $1,000,000 that could actually be higher than that. But of course, we're going to try to keep the costs down if for whatever option the council chooses. So our actions tonight and giving you direction to potentially draft an ordinance, would that be committing us to up to $100 million? I mean. No, no. I mean, tonight, if there was direction then then as soon as we were completed with the ordinance, we would bring that back to the council with a staff report. And I envision working with the city manager's office and public works for what that ordinance would look like and then also what that audience would cost as far as notification and enforcement. Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. That makes me feel a little bit better about moving forward with this. I do think this is an issue that has come up in numerous community meetings in my district, mostly on the residential front. I think if. If I could, um. And that, you know, it's not just recreational vehicles. And I don't know how we're defining recreational vehicles, but oftentimes they are large boats or oversize other vehicles. And I think it's very important that if the intent is mostly traffic safety and removing nuisances from from neighborhoods and commercial corridors, that we be inclusive with that language and making sure that it's a little bit broader. That's just my recommendation. Councilmember. I believe that the motion does include restricting oversize and recreational vehicles. If I may have just been saying recreational vehicles, but I believe that the direction is to include both oversize and recreational vehicles. So that would include boats, large boats. Is that a recreational vehicle? That would likely fall in the category of oversize depending on the size of the boat. Okay. Thank you. And then I personally had an experience recently where, you know, I used my my in-laws RV and parked it in front of my house. And it was over the weekend that we we used it and we're working family. Uh, I had to return it all the way back to the Inland Empire. And so it took a few days for me to, to actually get the muster up to, to, to brave the freeway with this large RV. Um, I can imagine if that is the case for a lot of folks, particularly families who are vacationing and using recreational vehicles and to meet a 48 hour restriction is very, very restrictive. Right. And so I would like to offer a friendly amendment to extend that that time, because not everybody in that recreational vehicle is is homeless or there to be a burden on their neighbor. Um, you know, sometimes people have vacations and people have to go back to work and uh, I like to see that that extended at least, you know, four or five days so that the families can, can have the opportunity. And oftentimes you have families visiting, visiting your home, and it's oftentimes difficult for them to find a place to park an RV. I remember many years ago, the the parking lot at McDonnell Douglas in Bowie was full of ARVs from employees, from whomever else. That was a place where it was a safe place for for folks to park their RVs. It was free. It was a, um, and it served a purpose. I don't know that we have those options available as abundant as they were. And so I just think we need to be I understand the intent here and I support the intent. I just would like to be a little bit more flexible with the with the time. And so I'd like to just offer a friendly amendment to extend that to. Days. Like four days. That's. There's a. I'm assuming, Mr. Attorney, that's possible. What counselor we would need is a decision. No, I know, but that's fine. Okay. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes, I would also just ask that because, again, businesses are different from residences that we look at that because four or five days in front of a bit different than four or five. Well, I'm speaking specifically to reservations. Yes. Okay. Yes. And so for residents, I think it should be extended a little bit longer. I'm just understanding that. They're real challenges. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have customer supernova. Thank you. I think Councilor Austin Austin just covered it for me. And that is, you know, most of this is a complaint driven to our offices, and my complaints have been on those commercial corridors. And that should include we wanted a definition of that. It has to include surface streets. That is, that run parallel to a commercial corridor that seems to be a favorite parking spot. It's not in front of anybody's house. It might be at the side of someone's house, but those load up quickly. And also, I would really like to hear public testimony, first of all, because I've sat here for so long, I appreciate that this isn't a typical council night, but I think Councilman Rawson is in the right neighborhood of of days versus hours. And but I'm sure our public testimony will zero in on that. And it just gets back back to that concept of Can I. Park my RV in front of my own house because I don't want to unload it after driving several hundred miles home, I want a few days to recoup. So I think that's very reasonable. And Mr. Mayor, if I can point something out for the council's liberation from the signage plan, if it's a standardize for most of the corridors, that is when we can do it at the entrances. If we if the council chooses to go in a direction where it's more restrictive on certain corridors and less restrictive on others, that's where signage becomes more of a bike corridor, or we have to have more, more signage. So just something to bear in mind as the council considers. Thank you. With that Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Just a few quick points. The first is in regards to Councilman Aranguiz concerns, I think they're very valid concerns, especially coming from him, from the Coastal Commission. And again, I do want to highlight that this is an issue that I have conveyed to my colleagues for over a year now that's very important to me. And I've really tried to do my best to communicate so that we can have the time to have a dialog. On March 15th, Council's TFF actually highlighted several I'm sorry, the city staff to have several ordinances and in there they wrote that specifically what Councilman Urunga is talking about in regards to the Coastal Commission, stating that. There. We would have to get approval from the Coastal Commission if any of the areas are going to involve a coastal zone, which I thought was very, very good to point out that that wouldn't prohibit us from moving forward. In fact, the same TFF talks about SEAL Beach that has a they prohibit parking within the city and Huntington Beach also has a city wide prohibition. Newport Beach has a city wide prohibition. A city of Santa monica has a citywide prohibition, which wasn't in the staff report, but some information that we research later. So that's just something for us to to think about, is that certainly we would go through the steps. But there is some precedent for this because there is a public health concern as well as a traffic safety concern with with these vehicles because of their size, which sets them apart from others. In regards to Councilwoman Pierce's comments. Again, really great comments, points that we have considered. And the first question I would ask is, Councilwoman Pierce, you mentioned that there were some inconsistencies with our item in the staff report. I'd be curious to know what those inconsistencies are, because we did a. Really, really. We tried to be very. Thorough. And go with the staff's recommendation. The TFF from March 15th has the recommendations from staff saying staff recommends a more focused approach and believes it is necessary to change elements of the Long Beach Municipal Code to provide more clarity. Further, any modifications should provide consistency throughout the city and minimize the cost of enforcement. Specific changes to the Long Beach Municipal Code should include a prohibition against parking oversize vehicles within the city right of way and in front of residential properties. That was one of the suggestions and exceptions can be made for loading and unloading of oversize vehicles. So we try to stick with the staff's recommendation in our agenda item. So if there are inconsistencies, I'd love to have those pointed out because we definitely tried to not have that and that must have been inadvertent on our part . This is very separate than the homeless issue. In fact, you know, we have there are several facilities, several areas in the city of Long Beach where people can actually park ARVs. They're permitted to do so. The Walmart location is one. We also have the multi-service center and we've talked with our our folks over and homeless services about the possibility of eventually moving towards a scenario where folks could park oversize vehicles in the parking lot area there and allow them to get some services, maybe health care services and things as a way to offer more resources to folks that may not have a place to live other than their car. So this item is really, truly about public health in terms of just waste disposals and things on public streets and in areas that are not designed for that and the blockage of corridors for traffic safety reasons, that's the complaints that we've received. That's really that we brought this item forward. Like I said way before, we were having discussions about homelessness. The TFF is from March of 2016, but the item was brought forth by my office about six months before that. So it really the motivation for this item had nothing to do with tonight's meeting or discussions that we've heard of late. There really are complaint based residential concerns that we've heard and we're trying to respond to. Having said that, if if this is an important issue and it's important for all of the communities and all the districts , I would ask because it's an important issue and because I've I really have tried to give courtesy to my colleagues and get feedback and input and allow a lot of time for discussion and individual communities that we not receive and file. I think that really is is a way to, you know, to try to kill this idea that's important to at least a couple of us. So if if there's a need for additional reports that folks have, then maybe we can approach it that way and report back on something specific. But I think to receive and file, you know, I just would say on a personal and professional level, I don't really see what the need for that is if in fact, it's important to one of our. Colleagues and we have allowed ample time. If someone doesn't like the ordinance, certainly they can vote against it. But to receive and file it is to kill a discussion that was started a long time ago with ample opportunity for involvement by everyone. So I'd ask you guys to really think about that. So thank you for your courtesy. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Price and Supernova for bringing this forward and the city council for their comments. And I think everyone is speaking the complete truth that is there. If it is their truth in their council district and is their reality that they're dealing with the nuisances, and we should acknowledge that and respect that. After all, that's why we have council districts with different perspectives and points of view so that we can be responsive to our community. So I'm entirely supportive of this this discussion. I do have my concerns as the ninth District Council member and with and, you know, a little bit of experience here on dealing with issues where our laws aren't flexible enough to address issues in our in our community, and it doesn't lend itself to creativity. I think Councilwoman Pearce said it best with the conversation we had earlier on homelessness. I think we have to really be clear and focused on what the intent is, what we want to address, because what I heard earlier from Councilwoman Price was about health and safety and and that I completely agree with 100%. There's no no need for the elimination or dumping of raw sewage into into, you know, gutters and things like that. I completely understand we've dealt with issues like that in my council district, and 100%, I would say the entire council would be unequivocally clear that we support we wouldn't support that activity. But at the same time, I think that's distinctly different from the individual who owns an RV and has worked it out with their neighbors. And, you know, I have an example. I was sent a text message tonight from someone, a neighborhood leader who lived in their neighborhood 20, 30 years. And they worked it out with their neighbors. And their good neighbors are actually officers in the neighborhood association. And and it's the reason that they don't they don't go to storage. It's not that they're you know, they're poor. They can't afford storage for the RV, but they've taken the time to build that rapport and they don't want to pay the, you know, whatever it might be, between 100, 200 bucks a month for storage. And we need to be able to have flexibility in cases like that. But in our neighborhoods now, I think we need to understand what the difference is between those two so that we can build public policy around it. We've gotten caught up before on this council with the concept of Not in my backyard, and that's becoming and I'm afraid that's becoming the nemesis of good public policy or compromise. So local solution, in my opinion, it needs to we need to establish some criteria for what that is. And it might take some time, but establish some criteria for what what what would determine a neighborhood that qualifies to to go no RV in the flexibility given to the traffic engineer to work with those local neighborhoods and business corridors to find solutions. We've we had an example like this. We are preferential parking districts. Our ordinance is very stringent. It has criteria and it takes a long time to put in place. And that was problematic given we had a temporary problem. El Camino College, Compton Center, which is in our city, had to open up its gates and created a parking impact on a neighborhood that typically wasn't parking impacted. So we changed our ordinance so that we could be more responsive quicker, gave the ability for the traffic engineer to go around the petition process and and make the call that this area is indeed impacted by these problems. And they put forth a 18 month process to meet that neighborhood's needs. And when construction was over, it worked and everyone's happy. Many people in the city may not know about this because we handled it locally and we address in our neighborhood locally. I know that this and we just should be very clear that this is not this is this is going to be we had a lot of testimony. This was this has been the kind of policy that takes cities sometimes years or even a decade to implement, because there are people on all sides of this. And let's not you know, I don't think there should be a receiving file, but I also don't think that we should move forward with direction to do a citywide ordinance. There has to be something in the middle that says, you know, we take our time, get it right. And, you know, we we try to avoid being divisive. We try to bring people together around what the real issues are, is based on health and safety. We should be able to define, you know, what are the parameters or criteria to define who actually has a registered RV that lives here and who is, you know. Renting out their RV to homeless folks or who's living in the RV, and we address it through services or whatever that is. So. So I just want to make sure we have an opportunity to be creative. I don't think we should rush to, you know, number one, it's going to be either motion that's on the table right now filled up in the first three speakers motions. So there was really no opportunity to be creative or put something together tonight. And that's the very reason why if I had to, I would probably vote against all the motions tonight. What I would rather do is ask that we we, you know, ask the maker of the substitute substitute motion that we work with staff, give them some flex flexibility based on either this temporary fresh rental parking district or other things that look like to look at establishing criteria and establishing a pilot that we can actually look at in a city, in an area town, this that's impacted. And we look at that and, you know, what goes in that into that pilot, that local council member can help create that pilot and should it work. Then we explore going citywide because we're larger than every city listed in the report. And and those cities took a long time to get it implemented. And they're literally a fifth of our size. And I know there are other cities that have gotten done that are bigger, but I'm just let's not let's not forget how large of a city we are and everything doesn't have to be a up or down vote . So so I guess because there's no way to do anything else, I'm just going to offer a friendly to the maker of the substitute substitute motion that they give staff the flexibility to look at a pilot and establish some criteria based on some of the things that we heard tonight. So the business corridors and things like that and report back on how they would approach that, that pilot. I think that would probably be something that I and most of the council could see in nodding heads. A lot of people can can support tonight. That's my that's my friendly. I'd like the pilot in CD3. So this would be a I mean I'm all for that, I guess if everybody's, you know, on board, but I guess are we seeing a citywide pilot? So each council district is not promoting their I guess I. I wouldn't say a citywide pilot. I think we like, you know, we when we piloted the Alcohol Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, we piloted an amount of space that our planning folks that we can manage, we can manage this in this area. And they ended up being the 9 to 5 zip code or the planning district in North Long Beach. I think we just got to leave some flexibility to staff to say, what can we do and do well and study and see, should this expand? Almost every time we do a pilot in Long Beach, it ends up getting expanded because our staff does great. Whenever we start citywide, we end up with chickens, goats and bees. We end up with, you know, things on the ballot that we could, you know, just just saying we should take our time and look at it. But perhaps the pilot can give some flexibility to staff. The things you guys brought up are not they're not unheard of. Like to protect your business teacher who who doesn't want to do that, protect feces and things like that going into the you know, on the street. Of course we wanna support that. But there but you have to agree there are very legitimate neighborhoods or people who own an RV and have worked it out with their neighbors and would really be offended if we didn't take our time and and do this the right way. So this is in the interest of finding a compromise that meets the needs, gives the tools to the local council members and the traffic engineer to make those determinations and doesn't break our budget. That's all I'm looking for tonight. Okay. I think. I mean, it should be fine, I think. I don't know if it's possible to, because I would like to see what an ordinance would look like. I don't know if it's okay to have something simultaneously. You know, it would still have to go to two readings. I understand the council person from the ninth district. I think the friendly would be to change your motion to make this a pilot program in district number x, whatever district ion CD3 volunteered, but whatever district you would want, I think we would come back with something. Again, I am to talk to the traffic engineer in public works, but some sort of a draft ordinance that would be a pilot program only adopted in that district for some period of time. Okay. Well, if we want to adopt them in the districts that I think are most I mean, such a friendly environment, I. I think well, I don't want to speak for the councilmember, but it would be very difficult if we're going to do pilot programs in eight different areas or nine different areas of the city. That would be unmanageable. I'm sorry, I. Wouldn't be a pilot to do them. A bunch of them. It wouldn't be a pilot that's essentially hashing out tonight, which is what we're trying to get away from. I'm just trying to understand what how what are your. I would recommend allowing whoever is going to working on the city site work with maybe the council members who who who brought it up and explore and look at one. One area that could be a pilot. We learn from it. If these things if there are certain things we can glean, like taking commercial corridors out citywide, then great. That's what comes out of this. If it having the tools to go, you know, look at neighborhoods that have certain criteria like homelessness issues and things like that, then those are the things we can learn from this pilot. But what we want to get away from tonight is determining citywide or which neighborhood, and we want to give some some flexibility to staff to work on somewhere that they think can be successful. Is that even possible, Mister City Manager or Mister City Attorney? Is that feasible? What I'm asking. I didn't run it by any of you. I just didn't want to have a fourth. We were just talking about that. You didn't run it by us. We're needing some direction here because our our dilemma is if we were directed to come back on an ordinance and you scale it back in size, we wouldn't be able to give you any kind of scope on the cost of enforcement because we have no idea what what the size of your pilot program would be if you give us direction that you would like to do a pilot program in and I'm making this up in CD3 and you tell us to work with a council person to determine the size. Then we would come back with it with a draft pilot program or an ordinance for that section that we could give you some idea of the scope and the cost of both signage, which would have to be by street in this case, and then enforcement costs depending on the extent of the ordinance. But here we'd have we're pretty broadly defined on the various things you've already added to your motion. Yeah, I just I guess with that, I think we're just honing in on just one specific district and I think there's more districts that have issues. So I mean, if we're going to do that, then maybe I mean, is it possible to do three or four districts? I mean, I'm trying to get some sort of I. Think the intent of the pilot is to see how well it works in there and then and then expand it as as you see fit or change it or modify the ordinance if it's not working as as correctly or in accordance with your desires. But and the timing of that is I do not know how long you would want that pilot program in place before you would consider expanding. Well. Councilman, do you mind if I just interject for a second, just maybe before you accept that or not accept that, do you mind for on this issue? Okay. So just let me I think that clearly I think what Councilman Gonzalez his concerns are, of course, is that there's concerns across the city, not just specifically in one part of part of the city. And there's also obviously concerns for those that have campers and some legal concerns on the coastal issue. Can I ask you a quick question, Charlie, because I think there's there's there's complexity to ask for a pilot without actually working towards an ordinance. Right. Because there could be some complexity to that there. Could we? The pilot would be a pilot ordinance for a specific area. It would be an ordinance because you'd have to create an ordinance for that specific area. That's correct. Okay. So just two questions. So I just remind a little bit, because this is a complex legal issue as well. We know that there are coastal issues. There's other legal complexities to this. It's similar to when we did the minimum wage conversation. You know, council directed you to do an ordinance, but before you brought back an ordinance, you kind of did a full report on kind of what that would look like, different models. And you brought forward questions that have to be answered by the council before a full ordinance could eventually be implemented. So I just want to just to throw out to the council, I think there's a couple of options here. I think there's a pilot option, which I think could be great, which would be to come back with a draft. I think the motion in that case would be to come back with a draft ordinance on a pilot project that would be a pilot specific area with pilot in the neighborhood, working with the draft, the makers of the motion. And then dependent on that success or not successful, we would then come back to the council and you'd report on that. So that's, I think, one option. The other option I think would be to direct you to work on on the begin, the beginning of constructing what an ordinance could possibly look like and bringing back to the council your kind of legal research on different ordinances on what what the Long Beach model could actually look like that could give people working, you know, connect with the Coastal Commission directly. So we understand what the coastal challenges are and then you can actually bring something back that could be implemented citywide. We could we could certainly do either one of those. So I just I think those are I think personally I'm comfortable with either, to be honest, I. I just want to just say that. I think that there is no question that that there actually is. There's a lot of good RV owners out there and a lot of people that are legitimately have concerns. But there also are huge problems with people parking some of these large trailers in RVs and in neighborhoods for weeks at a time. And it happened a lot when I was a councilperson in the first year. I remember it over and over again, the phone calls and trying to get these things moved. And so there are real concerns, does not put everybody in the same bucket because they're also very good owners that actually are legitimate owners and are doing are not creating blight. So just just to put out there, I think there are two options. Charlie, if you were to go and come back with kind of a legal report on the process, how long would it take? I think we could have something back in 30 days or something like that where we could take a look at and maybe come up with how to approach the Coastal Commission and and the steps that are involved if in fact this is to be implemented in the coastal zone. We have given that direction yet. But if the substitute comes to pass as we would, we will be looking at that and coming back with that. So that'll take some time. And then working with public works on the commercial corridors and how to, you know, craft this ordinance so that it's a workable ordinance for us and public works. So it sounds like there'd be one step in between actually bringing back an ordinance, but it'd be bringing back information of questions to be answered. If we would. I would envision, yes, it would be a combined report from the city manager's office in public works in our office on what we would recommend be included in the ordinance and and the reasons why we would recommend the legal issues to address the legal issues from my side and then maybe from operational issues from the city manager side. Okay. So I just think, you know, there's there's a couple options there. And I think one option is to ask the city attorney to begin the ordinance process, but come back with a legal report after talking to coast commission and the appropriate partners, which would be a citywide approach. And then there is a drafting an ordinance for just a a portion of the city. That would be a pilot ordinance. I think those are the two things that are at least that I just want to put on the table there. There's one. More option. And the other option. Is voting on the item, which. Is voting exactly on the item as presented. Absolutely. And I just wanted to to clarify something, if you might, if I might, with the city attorney, all of the the steps that you could go through to do that, could you do that under the existing motion on the floor, checking with Coastal Commission, checking out the feasibility? Um. We would certainly have to do that before if, if the substitute substitute were to pass as without the friendly amendment from the ninth district. Yes. Because we would have to address and reach out to Coastal Commission staff, etc. to make sure how we could or what are the options for implementing that. Okay. Thank you. Got to go back to Councilman Gonzales. Yes. Well, I would like to stick with a substitute substitute, but I do believe that we need a report in. And that's what I envisioned anyhow. Is that because I had some questions that needed to be clarified in terms of what defines a commercial corridor and that, you know, difference between the business and residences and the Coastal Commission items that Councilmember Suranga brought up. I think it will give us additional time, you know, to think about things going forward. And also, I think in a pilot program, if I envision that correctly, that is also just piece missing the issue. And I also feel that if I'm saying in the West Side, you cannot have, you know, RV oversight sites, vehicles that's going to go to another area. And I just think it just moves the issue around. If I'm just thinking preliminarily here. That's for sure. Just just jumping in because I kind of got hijacked on my I have three speakers while I was cued up. So here's well, here's what I'm saying. If we have if we have go forward with an ordinance and a study, all of that's fine with me. The issue I'm talking about is taking this citywide tonight or giving direction to explore it citywide tonight when multiple council people have just said we have concerns in our district. So I don't see an issue. I don't see a I don't see what the issue would be to simply say if they can't if they cannot write the ordinance without answering these questions, then explore flexibility and local communities approaches on what they can do, on ways they can do that, because they need some, they need direction. So I would explore both before they bring a city council ordinance back. So that's the best of both worlds. You get Mayor Garcia's compromise or his friendly to look at. Answering these questions. And you got and you answer the needs of a number of council members who brought up regional issues like coastal coastal commission stuff to, you know, frankly, having, you know, not sticking it to the guy who's doing the right thing. And that's what I envision will come back in that report is everything we're discussing all of these issues. Yeah. Let's clarify that. What what everybody understands, the report's going to come back and explore coastal issues. What issues? On the West Side issue? You know, all of the issues that we discuss, I would think that, you know, would be brought up residences. If I understand correctly, your motion was not accepted. So it would not discuss a pilot program, but. It would not evaluated. It would discuss the issues that you raised. We were just talking that we would never envision a report coming back to the council, maybe in a memo form, not on the agenda, explaining what we've looked at the process as we see it moving forward for an ordinance and what those key provisions of the ordinance would be. And then either the council or you could direct us to bring something back if you'd like to discuss it and or get further direction. And then we would come back with an ordinance. And maybe if the friendly included looking at a possible pilot that could maybe satisfy everyone's as an option. That's fine. Thank you. And we also have another colleague that's not here. I know that she was on the item, so that's fine. Absolutely. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. Very much. Great Councilmember Ringo. When I made the motion. To receive a file. Obviously, there were a lot of issues with the with the substance of the request as it is. Based on the discussion that we're having right now, those. That's validated that there are concerns with what is here because you're used to many questions to be answered. There's too many other issues to me to be addressed. My main primarily one is, is that I don't want to put the city in the position with the Coastal Commission and also don't want to put staff into a into a quandary of having to address other issues that we have with the city in terms of its LCP and whether we have to apply for a for a course of do you have a permit for those areas that are within the coastal zone? And since my receiver file created some. Concerns. I withdraw that they will withdraw my receiver file but only on the contingency that we do the study as as the as the city attorney has has requested to check into all aspects of implementing a citywide implementation of this of this magnitude. That would address all of the issues, including coastal issues, because I, I don't see where we can do both. We can have the best of both worlds. I mean, there's going to be some issues with, with, with the coastal, the coastal zone. And and it's not going to be I can tell you right now is that it's going to be it's going to be denied because it's been denied elsewhere. While the councilmember price has mentioned that there are other cities that do have it, that is not the current path that that is currently taken. We use address one recently and in Santa Cruz, that guy denied for the very issues that you mentioned earlier about the the intent of the of the of the zoning was not to address public safety issues, but the reason was to address homelessness. So people saw through that. So I don't want to put us in that position. So I want to make sure that if we do move forward with any kind of of ordinance or study, that we study it first and that you review it, all aspects of it cover it thoroughly and completely. And you come with us with recommendations on what an ordinance would look like as opposed to an ordinance because it's not ready. This this request right here is not ready for primetime. That is definitely true. And so the only way we can address it is by having a complete study on it. If I may, Mayor and Councilmember, just as a point of clarification, you can't withdraw your substitute now because the substitute services on the floor, but you certainly could after the vote on the third motion. But but your point is well taken in that as I understand the substitute substitute motion, it now requires us to come to council with a study in the form of a memo to the council on those issues that you've just discussed and raised. And we'll do our best to address all of those issues. And I'm glad you brought that up, because it wasn't it wasn't until. The concept of a Richardson right out up again, and there was some discussion on it. So now that Councilmember Gonzalez has agreed to that and I can I can support that, but I can't support the original motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce, then we're going to go to public comment. Okay. I think that my concerns were twofold. One is, what is the intent? The intent is to ensure safety around streets where we can see visibly and ensure that people can see around the corners and things like that. Let's make sure that we are answering that question whenever we come back with the report. Two, what kind of ordinance would help us in that area? If the intent is around public safety, health and safety, around what kind of sewage is being out there, what are some things that we are doing to address that? If we're going to how are we going to separate the homeless issue from the public site issue? And that's one thing that it would be extremely important to me and ensuring that if there's something around code violations or things like that, are we doing that on a you know, are we proactively going out there and looking for it? Is it something that, you know, like other policies that we have on the books where we only do it if it's complaint driven? How big is the problem right now? How many calls do we get in each district? Those are things that I would want to see come back. And, you know, some explanation around the temporary parking zones would be something that I'd be interested in having a follow up conversation with. I can support the idea that's here today, but, you know, that's not that so that we can move forward and get a study back . So just to be be clear. Thank you. Okay. So now we're going back to the hour. Did you want to go back to the council first before public got some of Ringo? I just want to be clear as well is. This is going to be a study. It's not going to be a draft ordinance, correct? Not knowing it would be a study and I would assume that we would have in that report back to you. Some of the key items that we believe, if you decide to go forward, would be included in the ordinance. But it's not an ordinance. It would be elements of an ordinance. Well, as the as I understand the motion, unless the maker changes it, it's a study working towards an ordinance coming back with an ordinance, or the study would identify the issues that you've raised, some of the parameters and some of the challenges that we would see moving forward, and then we would move the next step. Would we bring you an ordinance? Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I can I can support that that approach completely. I would I would say just to add a little more to the whole local. The question is about local or local pilot. Explore also, if there's a way, you know, if we end up with, say, a blanket ban in residential, if there are ways to where the good guy that owned, you know, owned his RV for 30 years can do the reverse of the preferential parking where they can go collect a petition, explore something like that, collect signatures from their local neighbors to say, hey, this guy has been fined, doesn't live in his camper, he owns his home, whatever. He lives it at his house. Carney Park is his thing here. So as a as a part of this, that's a question I want to see, too. If it goes citywide, what are the tools or tactics cities have used to create that some sort of a process to allow these folks who just would have worked with rather working out with their neighbors and go pay, you know, 150 bucks a month for the for the lot rental or or 75 bucks a month. I've heard some people some places have. So that I want to make sure that that's reflected here too. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. One other thing that I forgot to mention that I would like included in the report is that it's going to cost upwards of $1,000,000 where those dollars are going to come from. So just some background on that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to go to public comment. Please come forward. Make sure you say your name at the start. Hi. My name is Marie. Thompson. And I'm in the fifth District. First, I'd like to say there's sort of a pilot. Already. Going on in a neighborhood adjacent. To Carson Park. It's been going on for several years. Can I say. Driveway? Just put it in your driveway. I can't get out of my driveway without being hit. I start to pull toward excuse me pull toward the sidewalk. And I cannot. See four, eight. Houses. So as soon as I get towards the street, I then have ten feet of sidewalk, grass area. And then the RV. Before I even get my bumper into the front road. And then somebody goes by, it's a horrible safety issue. Can extend it. Four or five days because you're already going over the 72. Hours of not moving a. Vehicle. There's cords. There's hoses going over the. Sidewalk over the. Night. During the day, I can't walk safely down the down the sidewalk without having something a trip. Over at at night when I'm walking my dog. I can't cross the sidewalk because there's someone parked at the corner. That you can't see. For literally. From corner to corner. As soon. As you start to cross, they. Can't see you. And in my neighborhood. There's not a lot not a lot of stop signs. The other thing was. They've even gone to. The point to put them. Up and over there, treated to the RV, the cords, and it's just out of control. And I've tried to do everything I could before. Bringing it here by going to. All the city emails. And phone calls. And I'm just. Asking, please do something about it. Even if it's just by street, by street. There's certain cities I cannot get out of my driveway. Without. Thinking I'm going to get. Hit. My neighbor has already been hit once. Thank you. Q Next speaker, please. Good evening. If I knew it was going to go this late, I would have brought my motor home today and parked it. That's true. My name is George Davis, and I have lived in the city of Long Beach for almost 73 years now and have attended all the Long Beach schools from elementary, graduated from California State College at Long Beach in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminology. I then went to work for the Los Angeles Police Department, where I retired for 26 years of service in 1995. Since retirement, I've chosen to mentor kids in Long Beach area at risk kids, kids without fathers. And I have. And homeless kids I have owned and lived on my property in Long Beach over 40 years. Of course, like all of us, I have seen many changes, both positive and negative. Now, why I'm here today, I am concerned with the city of Long Beach initiating this new ordinance on motorhomes parked in the city streets . I understand. Completely. Some of the concerns that both the citizens of Long Beach and the city officials have about the growing problem. Years ago, I bought a 36 foot class a motorhome. We haven't talked about motorhomes in their classes and you know, the sizes, so which is really important. But I bought a 36 foot class-A motorhome because the size is not because of its size and where I live. I acquired a space of storage that I could find ten miles away in the city of Cypress on Lincoln. After several years, I realized how difficult it was for me. Every time I decided to travel in my motorhome to drive out that distance, leave my car there, drive back, load my motorhome, go out on my trip, come back, unload my motorhome and drive back. As Vice Mayor Richardson said, it takes a lot of time. So I thought, well, it's time to downsize. And I could park my motorhome in front of my house if I bought a smaller one. So I bought a classy 23 foot motorhome. My motorhome takes up about as much space as a large van, and I moved it every Friday for street sweeping. And I have for the last five years, I use my motorhome approximately 10 to 15 times a month and sometimes more. I bought it. I brought it a day I bought a day pass at both of Chica Beach, where I sometimes take kids when I mentor them and sometimes just for my getaway. Although you say this is a new ordinance and has nothing to do with homeless concerns now happening within the city. That's not true. I too have seen the homeless parked within the city and those areas. I too have seen that they dump their sewers or their sewage in the gutters, and I am concerned about that too. I am. But there are different ways that we can deal with this without having this broad umbrella, this blanket ordinance that's going to say all motorhomes are oversize, vehicles are the problem because that's not the problem. Thank you, sir. Time is all. Up. Okay. Sorry about that, but no problem. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Paul Collins. It's the second time you're seeing me tonight in the West Side industrial area. The people aren't supposed to live there. It's actually zoned in that commercial or in that industrial area that residents aren't allowed. And yet we have 8 to 10 motorhomes that have been there for several years. And most of the people living in there are mentally ill and or drug addicts. And they cause they create great problems for the industrial businesses over there. There's no families living in motorhomes. It's it's a different problem than what you have in the residential area. And I totally understand that one size cannot fit all for an ordinance. There's no way. But I also know that the West Side would be glad the owners of the businesses on the West Side. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they'll pay for their signs. We would pay for very nice signs at our businesses. If the city could draft an ordinance that wouldn't allow them to park there because they're they're creating serious problems on the west side that people in these motorhomes have threatened employees and owners of businesses. They they're selling drugs out of their motor homes. And they are they're urinating and defecating in front of business people and outside and dumping dumping their trash in the streets. And it's a serious problem on the west side does not want motorhomes. The Westside Industrial Area does not want motorhomes in their areas, parking. They don't want an ordinance that would be for oversize vehicles because the west side is a trucking area. So if you have trucks there at night, they're there because they're loading or unloading. And they they they don't park overnight. If they park overnight, they should be in violation. But if they're there working in their businesses, they shouldn't be cited. So you can't just use a blanket and say oversize vehicles, it has to be restricted recreational vehicles. And that's what the West Side would see is no recreational vehicle parking in the West Side, period. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members. Good evening. Especially to Councilwoman Gonzalez. She is the representative from my district and she's been helping me and listening to my plight. I am on the west side as well. I run a restaurant and I'd like to unfortunately point out the bad side of this. These are views that I'm speaking of are not the ones that are packing up the kids and the dog and going to the beach for the day or going on a trip. These are the individuals that are in some compromised phase of their lives. And it's unfortunate. But I also have to point out that they're compromising our ability to conduct business there. I'll give a specific story of customers. A lot of our customers walk to the restaurant, and sometimes I don't see them for a period. And I've asked specific groups of them and they told me that they don't want to walk to the store anymore because of the smell. So these are these are messy. They don't contain to just the parameters of their vehicle. They spread out the mess. It's physical blocking of pedestrians, sidewalks and our driveways. It's visible blight. And I don't want to be in that category of, oh, it's the West Side, and sometimes it's messy. I don't want the mess the West Side to be messy. So I make my most sincere efforts to hold the standards high for the West Side. And I think these are these are compromising my efforts. So I think it's super important that. We focus on the West Side as one of the hotspots, and it'd be great if we could be the pilot. Come study us plenty because we are one of the hotspots I feel. Come put up the signs, as Paul stated. Yeah. I'd love to help pay for the science if it goes on my street over there, but definitely put down the west side as a hotspot that needs attention. And the last thing I want to state is I know these things are complicated and we have to study all facets, but the West Side has run out of time because my customers are eventually going to give. Up and they. Won't want to walk to the store. They're going to get in a car and drive somewhere else because they don't want to walk to my store. And, you know, we have to look at the big picture, I guess, but my picture is how many customers that I lose that day. So I just wanted to say that. And thank you for listening to us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. I might ask you is Mike Flynn. I live in L.A. Heights. I own an RV. I started a charity Carson RV. You can't you can only get it from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to get it out of the lot. I work during the week long days about it to take the family on vacations, on the weekends. And so for me to do that, coming home from work on a Tuesday, I'll pick it up, load it up again if it's a long weekend. Coming back on a Sunday. I got to work the next day. It takes days to get it packed up. I pay for it to store it. I only park it in front of my house. But 48 hours is just not enough. I mean, it's the four or five day thing, but it's totally unreasonable for us that are doing the proper thing and taking our families on vacation to get roped into. Obviously there's other issues, but for it being registered on a block, there should be more amount of time for using it for family vacations and whatnot to get it back. Just unfeasible otherwise. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Andy Kerr. I'm the vice chair of the Homeless Services Advisory Committee, and I represent Councilman Austin's District eight. First of all, I just want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, and the Council, for your leadership in putting the homeless study session on the agenda for this evening, and that it was a really productive discussion. I didn't want to take up time earlier from the really important speakers that spoke earlier on the issue of homelessness. But I felt compelled to to speak on this issue while I completely understand the quality of life issues that were brought up. On this issue, I thought it was important to to also bring up the homelessness issue. And I appreciate the council's concerns and sensitivity in light of what we heard tonight and talking about this issue. And while I'm not concerned about the intentions, because I know most of you personally and I know your intentions on this, I'm worried about the net results of what some more restrictions might have on the issue of homelessness. And are we driving more people to losing the only shelter they have because of tickets and violations? Are we driving more homeless people from the community? Not intentionally, but as a net result of more restrictions. So I would just just ask that and I'm not encouraging the council to not take action because I think the quality of life issues are important. But I would just I think maybe this is an opportunity of how we can create a win win and address the issues that we heard earlier this evening on the issues of homelessness and address these concerns at the same time. There's a couple cities in the central coast city of Santa Barbara and the city of Monterey that have done some really innovative things. On creating safe parking spaces for people experiencing homelessness and are living in their vehicles, both ARVs and just living in their cars. And I think maybe there's an opportunity to do something creative there. It's also a way to partner with nonprofit agencies such as one of the existing organizations in the S.O.S., or maybe a new partner that we can bring into the S.O.S. to provide supportive services, to have people instead of spread out all over the city, to have them in one place. I was glad Councilmember Price brought up the Multi-Service Center and already talking to our folks in the Health Department about maybe creating a space there, I am concerned about the capacity at the Multi-Service Center. I think maybe there is very limited capacity. And does that capacity meet the need of folks that are living in their vehicles in the city? Maybe it is. I don't know, but I would hope maybe we would look at that issue. And if that isn't an appropriate issue or appropriate space for safe parking, maybe there's someplace else that we could partner with churches, with other nonprofit agencies. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Next speaker, please. My name is Mark Nevin and I live in only two sites and I support the intent of the end of the ordinance. I just don't think that, you know, we should be wrapped up in, you know, RV owners that. Store their. Their RVs offsite in a storage lot should be wrapped up in the in the ordinance. The time frame for loading and unloading is not sufficient for, you know, for families loading up an RV, especially if you're on it, you're going on a big trip. It's just. It's just not. Not enough time. The other component of the ordinance was oversize vehicles, which are defined as 20 feet and larger. A pickup truck with a crew cab and a standard bed is 21 feet six inches. So that would, in essence, make all those trucks illegal to park on the city of London, on any street, on any street in the city of Long Beach. So I think that should be changed to most in the in the memo that you that was in the in the report, you brought up a couple of other cities , and they had also changed their oversize vehicle ordinance to 22 feet, which I think would be. Probably a good idea to do in Long Beach, too, since that's the size, you know, that would that would eliminate the modern modern pickup of today. The. That was it. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Speaker Patrick Watson, fourth district. Like the last person said, my Dodge pickup truck that I drove my family around in is now illegal by her ordinance that she wants to pass. That's ridiculous. I also appreciate Mr. Richardson's common sense on the matter as far as giving people ample time. I'd also like to know what the statistics are on how many accidents are caused by RVs being parked in front of residences. You know, you keep bringing that point over and over again. I'd be curious, you know, maybe the city attorney or the manager can bring up those stats because I doubt there are very many on the residential streets. I could see the major business fares, $1,000,000 for signage, the amount of money to do the studies that we're all talking about tonight, the added budget for parking enforcement and our police to do this. Are we taking this? You were the heroine of the homeless situation. Are we taking this from the homeless or is this money coming from. We don't have money in the city. So let's pinpoint the areas that we have to work on it. I'm sure there's a camping ordinance. Target the camping if there are people living in RVs. Target the camping ordinance. Don't punish the people at work. One last thing are the people that in my neighborhood, they're plumbers, electricians, carpenters, drywall. They have work trucks. They come home from work and they park in front of their house so they can get up at, oh, dark 30 to go to work, support their family. They can't park it from their house now. What about the guy that has a cement pumper because he pumps concrete. Can he no longer come home? Does he have to rent a parking spot to go park his work truck and then drive home or getting Uber? Let's just. I'm just asking for common sense before we come out with these ordinances that just blanket everybody and punish people. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Thank you to treat them in the fourth district and similar to some of the other comments. The time frame on the RV owners, I think is is too short. And personally, I've moved from the third district to the fourth District in an effort to get more room and have more property and be able to park my RV when I need to in front of my house for a few days. I store it in an office of storage lot and a boat, and if I want to use it, I need to bring it home. Use it, come home, go to work for a day, unload it, get it back. Like many people said, a lot of these lots, they're not open very long. You can get there from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 6pma lot of us can't get there that time. You need another day or two. You take my boat to Catalina. Where do I put my trailer? You won't let me leave it in the launch ramp for more than three or four days. So I leave it in front of my house. What am I going to do with it while I'm gone now? So there's a lot of different issues. I can understand a lot of the West Side. I'm a business owner in the city. I think there's a lot of definition we could work on between cities. City streets, figure out the terminology, use the boulevards and our neighborhood, the central neighborhood areas that are off the street. I don't think we need to target right now. Let's target the stuff. You know, I see Bellflower Boulevard. I see Los Coyotes. I see examiner. That's easy. Let's put some signage on those streets. And do you have enforcement opportunities already on the books that have been there for years? That can be 72 hours for the residents if they start putting it in by residents. I can call. We can get rid of those people if they move somewhere else. So at this time, I don't think the residential smaller areas need to have the enforcement that some of the other businesses need, the West Side and some of the. Other business districts. I definitely see the need for that. So I think it's something that needs to be looked at. I never heard about this. I just saw it on social media. So we came down. I didn't see the opportunity to have any input, so I think more input from the entire community would be something we need to work on. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Angela Kimball. Good evening. Uh, Mayor Council. I live just outside of the city of Long Beach. I live in the county unincorporated island. And we have a significant problem in our area that is surrounded by the city of Long Beach with RV stored throughout our community on our streets for extended periods of time. We actually had an RV at the end of our street. My street on Gondor Avenue, actually, it was stored on Conant on the city side of the property for four months with people living in it and it did not move. Slide outs out. 35 foot motor home. Huge, huge. Beast with people living in it continuously. They would move it around the corner on street, sweeping day on Conant and then back around on back to go on it. One of the big concerns that I have tonight is the problem with these RVs, boats and trailers that are surrounding Patrick Henry School, which is the city of Long Beach School. The county sheriff has worked really hard with their resources to try to keep that area clean and clear of RVs, boats and trailers. We have kids crossing the street in between these vehicles. It's very unsafe over there for these kids to cross to go to school. So that is one of our big concerns. There's a lot of great RV owners heard a lot of them tonight, but we have a lot of RV use in our neighborhood that are actually registered to the city. Now, people who live in the city of Lakewood, because they passed an ordinance back in 2006, overwhelmingly their voters, they went to the polls and they had had enough of this RV all over their community. So we're asking you to really evaluate this on us and take a citywide approach, because these piecemeal ordinances do not work. We see what's going on up around Skylands golf course. We have people living in RVs all up and down. You piecemeal it up with signage up there and there they move the RV for from to to from. 2 a.m. to. 6 a.m. and then they're back and there's trash and debris and sewage dumped in the streets there. And it's a huge issue for all the families living in those residences all around. So we're just asking you to take a citywide approach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. I hate to wake everybody up, Mr. Mayor. Councilman, but I'm from the fifth district. My name is Robert Wenzel. Sorry, I'm usually in bed by now. I'm 77, so, you know, but. I have an issue that I've been trying to work out for eight years through councilman ship ski and now Stacie Mango, who I wish was here. But I appreciate Mrs. Price invited me to come out. We're I'm sitting on a service road. A service road, which is probably a good car with narrower than a normal street. But you allow parking on both sides. So when you get an RV on one side and RV on the other side. I've seen the fire department actually have to push in mirrors to barely inch through this thing to get to the restaurant at the end of where I live. So I don't think there should be that kind of vehicle. Unless there's only parking maybe on one side of the street. The other thing is, is we don't have a stop sign for the street that has a lot of traffic on 28th Street going through. And so when you try to get out, you can't see down 28th. There's no stop sign for them there to stop. So you can maybe inch out. So you really are playing with your life a little bit. Other thing is cars are coming in from the main street and they get they don't have to stop for anything either. It's kind of difficult sometimes the safety issues that come about. The other thing is the stop sign on the service road sits almost eight feet back from the from the other side of the service road. They don't have to stop. You can't see if a big vehicle parked right there all the way to, you know, in here to the end of the street. So. I've been trying to do this for eight years. I've talked to this person for eight years. There's him and his wife. I came home even at two, 2:00 this afternoon, 212 vehicles that were parked there, owned by that particular couple. Two cars. The rest of them were a 32 foot RV, a foot attached, a 15 foot trailer behind it. He has a steak truck. He's got well, they're all big vehicles. All I want to do is have peace, peaceful enjoyment in my home and be able to know that I have some safety around there. Not everybody will come out now. I don't know if I can do this, but. A good friend of mine came to visit me and said, she's an ex mayor of one of the cities in the South Bay. And she said, What the hell is this? And I said, I know I've been dealing with this for quite a long time. So she said, Well, if you can't get it straight with your current council person, then see the city manager. So I have some photos that I would like to leave as are possible that I can do that. Yeah. In fact, sir, I'm going to we're going to contact you tomorrow at my office, and we're going to work with Mr. Beck as well. This RV issue, we have to obviously is not resolved tonight. There may be some other traffic issues there. That we can help here. So we will we will we will take we promise that we will be in touch tomorrow. I'm kind of glad I came here now. Okay. Well, go ahead and pass this, Mr. Beck here. This is our director of Public Works. He's going to contact you directly and we're going to go out there and take a look at your street. Okay. Yes. Hi, I'm Aaron Wilhelm. I was born and raised in Long Beach. I'm in the fourth district. I've owned my home for 25 years and I am married, have four kids that I've raised in college. We have an RV. We just sold our boat. We also have a motorcycle trailer. Because that's what we do. We go camping and we store them offsite, but we bring it home just like the other people that you know. And it might take a week ahead of time because depending on when we have to pick it up and drop it off and you've heard all this, but and I, I don't like the idea of doing a pilot program in a district because if you are. Pick our district because I can guarantee all the neighbors will. I mean, you're going with all the calls that are coming in saying, hey, we have a problem here. We have a problem here. Our neighbors don't call and say, hey, we've got great neighbors that have an RV. We have great neighbors that have a boat. You don't get those calls. So you think they're not there. So do a pilot program, the fourth District, and you're going to have no one complaining. Everyone has their Arby's offsite. Some of them some people keep them in the neighborhood. And they're very nice neighbors. Right. But if you do a pilot program where her store restaurant is and I get what she's saying, but you do a pilot program there, then you're going to screw the rest of us over in the fourth District , on the east side, or wherever good neighbors are. And we have our Arby's. So I don't like the idea of a pilot program in one district because it's not going to work for everyone else, because if you do it in our district, she's going to get. Screwed. And it's not fair. Also, I you know, as far as the size limits, too. My husband has a large truck. That, again, is it would be considered oversize. Some people have boats. They're small. So where are you going to cut it off? This boat's 18 feet. So it's okay to park on the street every day. It's okay to park in the main thoroughfare. Like, are you going to tickets? Are you going to tow people, confiscate stuff? I don't I don't know what you're doing and where you're going to go with all this. Um, I like Richardson. Austin's ideas about just everything they said seem to make more sense than what Mr. Price said. I don't care for her. Um, her, whatever it's called. But anyway, I just. I didn't. And then someone else was saying parking the driveway. I have a 30 foot motorhome, so I can't bring it home parked in the driveway because it's going to block the sidewalk and block the street. So then she can't walk her dog. We do park it in the street in front of our house and we put the cord above the motorhome to the balcony so that she's not going to trip on it. So she just complained about it being on the sidewalk, but she also complained about it being up top, but up top, it's above where anyone could even jump and grab it so that it's not a nuisance anyone. It's not going to be a danger to anyone. And we're being responsible neighbors that are charging our motor home so that we can go on vacation with our family. Thank you. Thank you so much. And our final speaker. Thank you. The definition of a motorhome. Is mobile living. Mobile living. Regardless of where you're living. It's mobile living. And it just so happens that there's a segment of our community who really are living in those things. They're not vacationing. I wonder how. Inconvenient the Indians were when the first Europeans arrived here. Our convenient were they buy by the very trafficking on the ocean coming back and forth bringing all that stuff. They had to handle that. And they've done it. They handled it so much so that. American Indians have but the real Americans have been pushed. Over and we hardly ever see the Indians. Anymore. They were so inconvenience and they took it in stride. They lost their land because of it. Our discussion here of mobile, living and hazardous to the community. What really are we? What's the intent? What really are we saying? And I'm not. Going to read my prepared. Short story. Because some people's lives, their livelihoods are dependent upon the decision that you're going to make tonight. Or won't be made. What is the inherent detriment in the complaint to the neighborhood, the neighbors, the streets that warranted this ordinance? Did you ever say, really, what's bothering you, Mr. Smith? You get tired of. Looking at that thing every day. Do you know who's living in that being? Miss Jefferson? Have you ever knocked on the door and. Offered a bottle of water? And can I help you with anything? How easy is it to inconvenience the homeless? Just because the neighbors don't like the look on the street. I lived in a motor home and I'm about to purchase another one because. My work for the homeless requires that I. Be on well on point wherever they are 24 hours a day, just in case they need me. How I got the first home. Somebody called me and said, You need a motor home for the kind of work you're doing. I'm going to have it delivered to you in a flatbed truck. They paid the insurance on it for the whole year. And I told them. Lady, I dreamt that I had a motorhome five years ago. Let's be. Honest here. They are people who are homeless, who are living in these things. And the city can't provide anything for them. For whatever the reason. What is the itemized resolve for this for this ordinance? Thank you, Mr. Assad. The last speaker, Mr. Goode, here. And then we're going back to the council. All right, good. You. It seems to me at the beginning, in the end, it boils down to no matter what district, it is the public safety issue. There are large vehicles. Whether to be a motor home recreational vehicle, or what if they present a public safety issue. That issue needs to be addressed. Period. And listening to this, one of the things that came to mind. Is this a great business opportunity there for somebody? Because there's obviously a need for. Location to find locations for a number of these. Vehicles, whether they be the recreational vehicle used on weekends or for vacations, or whether it be housing for people. There's no reason why there cannot be a mobile home courts set up for people that are. Living in them as their permanent residence or a temporary residence. But it's got to be done in a safe manner, period. And I've got I'd like to think that the majority, the overwhelming majority of people that have these vehicles are responsible people. So there's a there's a definite need there. We've got maybe facilitate some business development to have those mobile parks. For various different purposes, then there'd be a, a sub the business of shuttling people back and forth. But it at the end of the day it becomes a public safety issue. As one who rides a bike a lot, they do present problems when they're taking up the roadways. Also, I do notice a number of them are operating de facto offices out of them or shops, chop shops of some sort, particularly around the traffic circle area in the fourth district and then going up Bellflower Boulevard and on out into Lakewood, so forth. So they're at the end of the day, as you say, it's a public safety issue. And it has many aspects, but it should not be an indictment of, you know, there should be an indictment at oh ten of someone's intent while you're trying to root out the homeless or the, you know, the the nuisances and so forth. It's a public safety issue, and that's how it should be examined, in my view. Thank you. Sorry. I think you didn't speak. You speak again. Can I speak again? I can't do what? It's one speaker per commenter on the topic. Okay. I just think that, uh, it is a public safety issue and it's a completely separate issue between living in a motor home and someone that owns their residence. Thank you. Yes. Get out. Of it. Thank you, sir. So. Okay, so that concludes public comment. So let me go back to the council. Councilman Price. So just a few things. I'll be very quick here. I appreciate the comments from everyone. And I know sometimes when we come to council meetings, we have certain things in our mind and we're anxious to say them. But when I started off the comment, this is for some of my neighbors who are up there and the woman from the fourth district. Sometimes we think that we make certain assumptions. When I started off, what I said was, I'm very open to hearing what my colleagues think about this and and talking about how we can draft an ordinance. And then one of the speakers talked about having, you know, read my proposal. My actual proposal for tonight specifically talks about a situation and the need for a proposal that's very different than residential people using it to parking it outside of their home for a limited period of time. It says constituents report that vehicles are parked in front of homes and businesses for weeks or even months at a time, taking up valuable parking spaces, blocking view corridors and limiting access to driveways and alleys. In many cases, the occupant is illegally living inside the vehicle. Additionally, residents have observed several instances of individual disposing waste from the vehicles into stormwater drains, as well as report of portable gas generators being used as a power source. So that was the reason it came forward. So the definition of oversize vehicle is actually not my definition. It's not what I was proposing. It's actually currently in the Long Beach Municipal Code and has been for years, and it defines an oversize vehicle, as you stated, 85 inches high or 80 inches wide or 20 feet long. Several other residents, actually, it was passed in 2005. Several other cities have definitions, and I think that's a really great point for us to think about expanding the size, because three of the cities that are cited have a 22 feet. So I think that's an excellent point and that's something that we should definitely consider updating our ordinance. The other thing is in terms of the time to load and unload. Councilman, one of my one of my council colleagues and I actually it was Councilman Austin who actually used the example of his own situation where he wasn't able to return it in time. We actually had a conversation. Most people returned from a holiday on a Sunday and they probably have to go back to work the next day. So moving it in 48 hours is probably not realistic. Where that came from again is the current ordinance. Also, the city of Lakewood has it looks like a three day loading and unloading. SEAL Beach has a it looks here like they have a two day loading. It looks like Huntington Beach has a three day loading. Newport Beach has a one day loading. Costa mesa has a 48 hour, two day one. So every city, it looks like it's about 24 to 72 hours. We can certainly make that longer. That's not the issue. Again, the intent of the ordinance isn't to go after residential owners who store their vehicles off site. I live in Alamitos Heights too. I get daily emails and complaints from people regarding some particular spots where people are parking on the street for an extended period of time. And although sometimes neighbors may not share that with their neighbors, that it bothers them. They certainly share it with their council member. So we're trying to find an ordinance that is fair. And obviously we don't want to punish people who store their vehicles. There are in the city of Long Beach currently. Ten different places where you can store your vehicle ranging from anywhere 75, $75 a month to $200 a month, depending on the size of your vehicle. So there's a lot of opportunities. We want to encourage people to use offsite storage. We want to allow ample time for people to load and unload. But we also want to address some of the growing issues that we're seeing in terms of an increase in the number of RVs that we're seeing parked in residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors. So I just I did want to clarify that and let you know that you're being heard. And really the intent of the ordinance was not to go after people who are traveling on vacation and fact that my my ordinance my proposal actually says as the summer months come to a close , fewer families will be using RVs and trailers for recreation. So this is an appropriate time of year to address a change to the municipal code that would provide adequate time for everyone to become aware of any changes before major travel months are upon us. So we're trying to work with residents who have RVs and figure out a solution that works. And like I said at the beginning of this discussion, I'm open to finding out what works for everyone as we move forward on this. But it is a very, very controversial issue. And just because your neighbor may tell you that they're okay with it doesn't mean that's not what they're telling. That's not doesn't mean that's what they're telling their council person. So thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I'll try to keep it brief. I'm reminded that years ago, one of our colleagues, Councilmember Andrews, had explored the idea of having safe parking places within our churches and possibly with some of those nonprofits that provide services to our homeless community. I would like to ask and I can do this, you know, put on agenda item down the road. But I would like to say that I'd like to propose that we get a report back on safe parking initiatives that have been done in places like Santa Barbara. As Commissioner Kern brought up that there are some opportunities that we can possibly partner with the Multi-Service Center, with some of these churches, with the places that provide services so that we have two outcomes. One, we're getting some of the people that are living in their cars off of the the residential streets and corridors that are important to us. And two, that we're finding another way to connect them with services that will help them hopefully get back on their feet. And so I don't know that that needs to be a part of this item, but I can direct staff, you know, in a more formal, formal way to to come back with that. And I think if we're doing that alongside this initiative, that that's something that I would definitely be supportive of. Thank you, Councilman Austin. So I just wanted to add a piece to the story that I told Councilmember Price and I let everybody else in on a little earlier. So on the fifth day when I got ready to return, the RV code enforcement was sitting outside of my house writing me a ticket. So there is some enforcement in place. Okay. So we're going to go back to the motion on the floor, which I'm going to have repeated, just to make sure that we all know what we're what's being voted on. So, Mr. City Attorney, can you repeat the motion on the floor, which I believe is a substitute substitute by Councilmember Gonzalez? That's correct, Mayor. The motion that I have is a substitute submitted made by Councilmember Gonzalez, seconded by Councilmember Price, would be to now as amended, would be to prepare a study from the city attorney's office and from city management that would look at a number of issues that an ordinance like this would or may create. And they include the business district banning the definition of oversize vehicles, the application at service roads or access roads, prohibited parking in front of businesses, definition of commercial corridors. Addressing the Coastal Commission issues including coastal zone, possible CDP, coastal development permits and and the impact on the local coastal plan pilot options. The number of hours increasing for in front of residential to 48 to 72 possible tools to allow for parking in front of residential houses different hours different the number of hours for in front of businesses would be less than what is in front of residential. And then the public safety issue of illegal dumping and the notice requirements to implement. And it's just a report. That's correct. That that would be the report that we would try and answer those questions that have been raised tonight in a report to council. And in that report, if we're able maybe put in some suggestions that public works and the traffic engineer have on how we could craft an ordinance to address these issues, and then we would take further direction. Okay. Okay. So just to be clear, it's a report that's comprehensive on all those issues, and that's the motion on the floor. It's not an ordinance. It's to get information and bring it back to the city council. And I would also just add, there's a lot of folks that came tonight. So there'll be plenty of opportunities, too, in that report comes out to everyone. Take a read, take a look and have some further discussions about this issue because there's a lot of people interested as well. And I just want to re-emphasize something that Councilman Price said and having I know that she talked to me about this issue and I know that her intention has been completely to try to focus on those problematic areas that have been a blight on a neighborhood. And so whether it's the issue out in West Long Beach, there's other other campers that stay out for weeks. I've seen them at a time. It's in no way intended to affect folks that are getting nervous for their families and trying to take a nice vacation or have their boat out there and do all that and do all that work. And so I just wanted to re-emphasize that motion is on the floor. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. So that report will come back to the council. And now we're going to go to what will absolutely be the latest we've ever done public comment. So let's go ahead and do public comment. And once you're still here, I have Shirley Bouchard, Steve Updike and Larry Goode here.