Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.120, temporary enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
High ranking. Adam. Adam. 29 motion carries. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to civil defense and the declaring of the urgency thereof read for the first time and laid over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Motioned by Councilwoman Pryce. Can I get a second? Second by country. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to be heard on this. Yes, please. So. So I have a couple of comments on this. First, I want to thank Monika for putting this together. I do have some concerns with with the language not not at all reflect the work of our city attorney on this at all. But I think the intent of this item, as it was suggested to council, reads very differently than what's actually on the item. So kind of to start with, you know, I think if we can try to keep. This item related to Code Red as opposed to a broader category of just general emergencies. I think that would be good. So my recommendation or my motion is going to be that this item be written related to COVID specifically. This in regards to the language that's in the TFF, I think it's very broad, but going into the ordinance specifically. So if we look at the red line version on page one, I have a couple of recommendations. I would request that the 2.69.070 that the term director be defined further to include city manager, as I believe that's the reference in this ordinance. Is that the director. Would be equivalent to a city manager. Is the city attorney there? Can they. Is that correct? Yes, yes, I am here. And yes, that is correct. In the earlier in the ordinance, we were only amending two of the sections of this ordinance. And we the plan was at the conclusion of COVID, or when the emergency was over, we were going to take another crack at rewriting the entire ordinance to clean it up and bring it up to speed. So you are correct that the definition of director is the city manager and we we can make that clear in this red line version. Okay. Thank you. The other suggestion that I had is still on page two of the red line version, the timing of this. It didn't make sense to me. Is it after the conclusion of the emergency or shouldn't it be upon the declaration of the emergency? I think were feasible. My intent would be that there would be approval from council where feasible before the city manager were to act. And is that if we were to get support from the council on that, is that something that could be worked into the ordinance to make that a little bit clearer? Again, this is Charlie Parker. And again, the answer is yes, we could work that into the ordinance. The the issue that we were having specifically to cover and your first comment about making this directly related to COVID could also be incorporated if that's the desire of the council. But the health orders were changing so rapidly. We when this first was coming out multiple times, possibly in a week, and there would have been, to the extent practical to bring it back to council, it takes a week or two at the best or the fastest. So we were trying to be, as you point out, COVID specific with this and the it was going to be bringing it back at a later date. So I don't know if that answered your question, but that was the thought is that these are this was a fast evolving issue driven by health data. And the the health orders. Were. They slowed down, but they were continually changing there for a while. And I and I get that. I totally get that. Charlie and I and I really this is has zero my comments have zero reflection on my trust in our current city manager. But if you look at the four corners of the document, at least what was presented in a council package, a packet, it really is very broad and it's not narrowly. It's not narrowly tailored to the current situation, which I believe was everybody's intent. So if you look at how it's written, so my my motion would be that this be narrowly tailored to reflect COVID related orders to the extent possible actions by the city manager regarding those orders should come back to the Council to the extent possible. I would request that throughout the document we have the term his. This is a very minor point, but perhaps coming from a female, I would like the language to reflect his or hers. We say this is language that we're imposing into our municipal code that will relate not just to Tom Modica as our city manager, but any future city managers. In regards to page two, subsection G is the assistant director. Is that the same as the assistant city manager? And the answer to that is no. The director and I don't have the in the definition section and to to raise your point to gender. Again, we were only amending two sections, so we did not address and that that was brought up. And no, I totally agree with you on the gender issue. We had made changes through the entire ordinance or entire section, entire Chapter 2.9, but we felt that was too much to try and do at this time. So I totally agree with you that we should correct it. But when it goes into the municipal code, if justice want, these two sections are changed, it'll read differently. I don't have a problem with that, but we will certainly do that and we will certainly define in these two sections. Well, the assistant director to. Yeah, I think that would be very good. I think that would be helpful in terms of the violation section, which is why I thought we were bringing in this document to begin with. I was frankly surprised. It was a lot. It was much broader than what we had discussed. But in terms of the violation section at 2.69.110, I would love in subsection in sections eight sub. Two. I would love that if we could somehow spell out law enforcement in there. I don't understand why emergency organization is in there. I think that's a little bit vague. And again, I'm perhaps I don't have the full language of the ordinance. I'm only looking at what's in the council package. But if we could include something about law enforcement or law enforcement officials, I think that would be very helpful in clarifying the document on page two of the whereas clauses. I would like the whereas clause that says to the extent possible approval, to the extent that approval from council is impractical, something to the effect of that there's going to be an effort to receive approval from council or notification to council because I think that's missing in the whereas clause. I also think that the whereas clause is missing the fact that the intent of enforcement is really education and outreach. First enforcement through criminal sanctions is is not the primary legislative intent. So this that's you know, I think we should include in the whereas clause that enforcement that education and outreach are the primary goal for any enforcement efforts. On page four, it sounds like we're trying to say that, you know, under section 2.6, 9.110 and your violations. It looks like we are. Talking about this as a misdemeanor. But then in the on page five, we talk about it's the sole discretion of the city prosecutor to prosecute it either either as a misdemeanor or an infraction. There's no waB let languish under 2.69.110. So I think we need to clarify that it can either be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or an infraction under the municipal code. And then I think that would naturally lead to the prosecutor has the discretion to make that determination. I that's that's all right. Excuse me. But that's already in the mini code in other sections that this is the discretion of the prosecutor. That's be language was added at the request of the city prosecutor. Okay. So we don't need to spell out that the offense itself can be punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor. No, because that's already in the municipal code. All violations of municipal code that are criminal in nature are at the discretion of the prosecutor. Okay. All right. I mean, I'm looking at 2.6, 9.11. Now I see that the prosecutor has discretion under Section B, but Section eight only lays out misdemeanor as an option. So if that's if that's how the Miss the Munich code is written, then then that's fine. It's consistent with it. I just I feel like any resident reading this or or some that's this might apply to will think that it can only be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. There's no it doesn't call out infraction. But if that's the rest, the way that the rest of the code is written, then, then that's fine. I would like to add under section 2.69.110, sub a sub one it says after. Notice willfully violates or refuses to neglect, refuses or neglects to conform to any lawful rules. I think it would be important to put something in there that says after notice and an opportunity to comply. We want to give up people of notice, but we want to have an opportunity to comply before we start talking about criminal sanctions. I think that's the intent of the council. I might be wrong, but I think the intent of the council is to give people the education and give them the opportunity to be made aware of the rules and to comply with the rules before we start talking about criminal sanctions. So so my recommendations would be to approve this with the areas that I've pointed out as needing a little bit more clarification. We can certainly do that also. Okay. So thank you. But but I would, I would ask council to consider limiting this to COVID because as it's written, it's very broad. And, and the timing of when city manager can take action without council approval is very, very broad. And you point out that this is only this I do point out this is only after the declaration and ratification of an emergency by the city council. So while the language is broad and it is already broad, we are adding this to as a point of clarification and as an additional tool. I totally agree with Council Member Pearce Pryce that the the intent is to gain compliance through education and notice. But this would help clarify as as you know, there has been some difficulties in enforcing the health orders in other jurisdictions. And we are trying to the best we can address that with the changes that you've requested this evening. We can't do that tonight. We will do a rewrite on this and bring it back at a future date. But we could certainly make those changes. I appreciate that. I mean, I think for me, I was really surprised to read this because it says it talks about you know, it talks about received and filed by the city council no later than at the conclusion of the emergency or shortly thereafter. There is a lot of opportunity for council to weigh in before the conclusion of an emergency. So I will again, let me reiterate, I don't perceive this as a problem at all for Mr. Modica. But the way the language is written gives a lot of latitude to someone who may. Not be as prudent or maybe as conservative with the powers as I think Mr. Modica would be. So I really want to make sure that we're writing a document that is narrowly tailored for a particular situation and allows for council to weigh in when practical at every stage of the orders. I don't want a situation where our city manager is declaring his or her own orders without consultation with the Council. And so that I'm just trying to narrowly tailor this to to account for that, knowing that this will be in our municipal code perhaps longer than Mr. Modica might be. City Manager. So that's why I want to bring this to your attention. So, council member this is Tom. So I fully agree with you in terms of we're not looking to to do anything without, you know, kind of council interaction. And I do think you have to think about, you know, future people not, you know, who's here in the seat at the time. What as your city manager, I'm very interested in and is very interested in and so is the prosecutor in this section is really the violations part. So we would ask you to to allow us to somehow make those that wording so that if we do need to do citations, it's very clear and that we have that authority . That really is the important part to us. We could come back and clean up the rest of it later or make other changes or modifications. But that is the request we're getting from PD and city prosecutor is to make the violation section very clear. And it is it is absolutely our intent to do to do education first. We have not had to issue citations, and we're very proud of that because every time and every call we go to, we educate first and it rectifies the problem. So I did want to underscore the importance of this, to be able to have a clear, enforceable section. If we do reach somebody who is purposely and willfully disobeying the health order and PD is trying to get compliance. That clarification. Mr. Murdoch, I thank you for that. My motion then would be to approve section 2.69.110. Entitled violations with the modification to the whereas clause include the legislative intent, which is that education and outreach are the intent are the are the priority in terms of enforcement. And that imposition of criminal sanctions is not the priority of this action, but is an option that's available to law enforcement if necessary. So that should be included in the whereas and when I would further request that on page four of the document under 2.69.110 sub a sub one that the language and an opportunity to comply be inserted after the words after notice. With that, that's my motion. It's okay that there's emotion. I think councilors in the house seconded the motion originally councilwoman. The names. Yes. With that. Seconding that again. Okay. Okay, great. So there's the motion in a second. Uh, let's see. Comes to me. Ranga, you wanted to second the motion? It's already seconded, Councilman Mongo. Yes. I also had the opportunity to speak with the city attorney earlier this afternoon about this item. I, too, have concerns. I think that perhaps with the comment from our city attorney that the goal would be to bring this all back and get it revised. What I would ask is let's have this sunset in 90 to 120 days. Let's go at 90, at which time the city attorney has plenty of time to work on and bring back a more complete picture of what is necessary. I also have concerns. I don't want to be using enforcement on the front lines. There are things that we are not enforcing that are far worse than some of the things that I see on the media and I don't want to of our city get to that point. We're very fortunate to have Mr. Modica and an excellent chief of police, but that does not mean that that will always be the case. So, Councilwoman Pryce, would you be open to a sunset clause in 90 days? Of course, yes. Wonderful that I can be. Mayor and council member Mungo. If I could just request that a 90 day sunset clause may not be enough time for the covered in as the motion has been revised, it's only adopting the violation section. We can certainly bring something back to you before 90 days. I don't think you need to put the sunset in the violation section. We could come back to you with a revised either this whole section or just the changes that Council Member Price had requested to the rest of the ordinance before 90 days, if that makes it better for you. But I'm not sure that from a practical speaking, we'll be out of COVID and not need the violation section in 90 days. If that makes. How about 80 days? I'd put us in a November. We'll go with whatever days you want to put on. Yeah. I just I'm really cautious that this council continues to give away our power. I mean, it's great that we have committees that advise us and all these other things, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with us. The people elected us. The people didn't elect the city. We didn't elect the chief of police. All those things. It is our responsibility to listen to the constituents and and our responsibility. And so if 190 seems too small, let's see. 120 would put us in June. July, August, September. I'm open 180. That's November. That would potentially mean that a second wave was coming. That's far enough time for it to be a priority to other offices. Councilman Pryce, are you open to revising to 180 days? I am. You know, the sunset clause isn't that called to me? But if it's critical to one of my colleagues in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to accept whatever recommendation you have. Thank you. I appreciate it. I feel passionately that we really need to look at sunsetting more things more often and looking at them. I know we trust staff a lot, but I mean. 100 days ago, we wouldn't have thought that half of the projects in the city were on hold. And so this really provides for ensuring that future councils are protected and the wording has come back and is in place. And if not, then a future council can handle revising the language again. It obviously isn't too difficult if we can bring it forward at this time and we don't currently have any health challenges or health order challenges that are coming down on a weekly or daily basis. So we have that time to make those changes. So I appreciate your acceptance of my family. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Price, for redlining. This on top of the red line. I I want to go on record as saying i agree. I think it's important that the council maintain the power that that we do have. But I also want to make sure that we are in a place during a crisis or a disaster that our city manager has the powers that he has now and that he's able to be effective in in executing those. I know that we haven't been like Orange County, where we've had a lot of people out across the city. But we have had an issue in my area and we have had to have more P.D. presence out there on the block in the parks. And I don't want to be in a position where there's a gap in what we can do. And my concern today is that we are going through the state making changes. L.A. City, L.A. County might. And so I want to make sure I'm not a fan of ticketing. You guys all all know that. But I want to make sure that there's not a gap in what the people on the front lines are saying, that they need to make sure that their safety in place. So I know that lots of people probably have opinions on this. I think the motion that Councilmember Price has is a good motion. And so we can get this done and then come back, you know, at a later date and fine tune it. And I do think that there's a lot of energy that the staff is spending right now on items like this in the middle of an emergency . So as much as we can put it into place that now for future emergencies, I think makes sense. I'm not completely for or against sunsetting on this item, but I do think that we have to be mindful about making sure that when there is a crisis, that there are already rules in place that allow us to protect our residents first and foremost. So I support the motion as is and look forward to voting. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So I tend to agree with a lot of what I heard on the council, you know, in the meeting from my colleagues. My thought is. I'm a little on call. It is kind of hard to follow. You know, I have the agenda item up and it's kind of hard to follow all of the changes here. I think it might just be cleaner if we simply give staff a week. You know, if we amend that motion, just give staff a week to come back and have some of this worked out. I mean, I tend to agree with their editing language about, you know, he versus she that she or they and a little bit more time briefing the council members on the implications of this. We had a conversation a little bit earlier about how we want to be appropriate, developmentally appropriate, with engaging young people who may break rules and things like that, skate parks and stuff like that. You know, I think we need to have some conversations on that. I get we want to have some of this in place in case people say no to the social distancing. But I just think we need to take our time and make sure the council feels good. I actually would. I would. Councilman. Councilwoman Pryce, are you open to a given staff direction? You work on some of this and come back next week so we can take a complete vote. I mean, respectful of all of the things that I've heard so far. But absolutely. I mean, I'm not. Curry I understand that the city manager and the police chief, of course, want some tools. And I get that. I mean, I'm dealing with this like tenfold in my day job with the beach cities. But I have I have no objection with coming back to it in a week. I think that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for being open to that, if you would make that your motion. So I'm happy with that. Okay. So I think just for clarification, I think the motion is just to bring it back in a week with clarification that what I think that's what I heard Councilman Price in the right. Right? Yeah, that's right. Okay, great. I wasn't interested in anything else. I'm good with that. Okay. Comes from your anger. Oh, well, that was going to be what I was asking for a point of order, because it seems that any changes that the reprisal is a substantial change. The ordinance is worded. So I was going to ask you if the changes were set up to go back and then make those corrections or adjustments as proposed. But see that there's a motion on the floor already to do that for a week. I'm good with that. Council Member Your Honor. You're absolutely correct. Based on the additional motions of the sunset clause, this would have even the modified motion by Council member price would have needed to come back for a new first reading. Thank you for that clarification. Also with you, certainly we can talk about in the future, I don't know if it's something worthy of discussion here or at a city council meeting, but the way I heard the discussion going was that there was a push towards adopting a growing portion of organs and in making changes that would come back later with those to the council. And that I think problems with that and I'm not sure that I would want to see a problem with this ordinance that it was other future one where we adopt the Parliament. We'll have a review for other parts of it to come back later. Any opinion on that possibility? Councilman of Urunga, thank you for the question. Yes, I think that we were trying to be very narrow and it doesn't look like we succeeded very well. But we were trying to be narrow in the change to this particular section when, as I mentioned earlier, when we looked at the entire civil defense section, we believe that it's quite outdated and based upon what we have learned in dealing with this recent COVID crisis. We believe that a complete rewrite of the section is in order. But that's a that's a large undertaking. And it we felt the need for the violation section would be necessary to help us address what's currently going on, and we could wait on the others. We certainly don't recommend that as a general practice. You're very right. I think if we're going to address a section of the municipal code, we should take on the entire section and bring it up to speed and and do the best we can with that. But given where we are today and the resources that we have, we are just trying to narrowly bring back a narrow, minor change to the section, which some people obviously may not think is minor, but a change to the section that. And then at a later date, when we had more time, bring back the entire ordinance to be debated and considered by the city council. Thank you. Thank you for the fabrication, that's all. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Austin. Yes. I got the clarification I needed when I queued up. So thank you so much. I'm fine with moving this item a week, but I do think it would probably behoove us to have the city prosecutor and or police to move on to some. Some credibility as to why we're moving this item. Well, thanks. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion to second to table this. And why don't we go out and do a roll call vote? District one. All right. District two. I'm District three. I. District four. Oh. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. District eight. District nine. Hi. All right. Ocean carries. Thank you. You please do. I am 25. I'm sorry. AM 30.