Speaker 0: Now we're going to move to item 23.
Speaker 1: Item 23 is a report from Development Services recommendation to declare ordnance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to short term rentals. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission citywide.
Speaker 0: Why could we? Are we ready? Okay, fine. Kind of spend quiet to please.
Speaker 12: Yes. Thank you. I would. So I'm the crazy lady that brought forward this item several years back. And the intense with bringing this item forward at that time was really to make sure that the city was being proactive and thoughtful about how short term rentals operated in our city. We know that we do have a housing crisis. We know that we are also a city, that tourism is growing. And we find ourselves really trying to make sure that we create a policy that is thoughtful and mindful of both of these. Tonight, I know that there's going to be a lot of discussion behind the dias. I would like to hear from staff a clear report. I'd like to hear from community members. And I've got several motions that we'll be talking about back here. Some of the key items for me are making sure that we find the right number, making sure that we have enforcement that has teeth. Making sure that we have requirements on the platforms and that there's a process in place. So with that, I'd like to hear from staff and yes, thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilmember. Yes, we do have a fairly detailed staff report. As you have laid out. This has been a long process with a lot of community outreach and we had very well-attended community meetings with many engaged people on both sides of the issue. We have also we were at the council in 2019 and and really walk through a lot of the details that were coming out of that community process and got direction from council to basically come back with the ordinance and do all the environmental work. So we brought that back to you in December, at which point the council asked us to do take a little bit more time, and that's why we're here tonight. And so with this, I will turn over the presentation to our Development Services Department. The presentation will be led by Charles Staver from Development Services.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: Good evening, members of council. This brief presentation is to highlight some of the key elements of the draft ordinance. Since our last discussion. Or some background. In 2017, the City Council requested a review of STR regulations and other municipalities and staff provided initial feedback and recommended hiring a consultant to do more thorough study. In 2017, we held several community outreach events and conducted an online survey. Did some case study research and presented our findings and recommendations for an ordinance which would allow for limited staffers in Long Beach. Following that discussion in 2019. Staff provided additional research on several topics at the request of council, developed a phased implementation plan, executed a voluntary tax collection agreement with Airbnb, prepared and circulated the secret documentation, met with host platforms and housing advocates, and ultimately drafted an ordinance regulating short term rentals for your consideration tonight. So here is a high level look at some of the key elements of the ordinance. It establishes a revocable city registration process, protects the housing stock by limiting the number of staffers citywide to 1% of housing stock promotes partnerships between the city and hosting platforms, improves safety, fosters good neighbor environments, and a registered store operator is allowed up to two non primary residence staffers with no limit on Unhosted stays and is also allowed up to 90 days. Unhosted stays in a primary residence. So a primary residence STR is defined as the unit where the host resides at least 275 nights per year. And during that time any guest stays are considered hosted and there is no limit on hosted stays that would only leave 90 days per year in which that unit would be unhosted. Now, since permanent Long Beach residency is not required to operate an str, an operator is not required to host in their primary residence and may choose to operate only a non primary residence. STR It's important to note that this slide represents the maximum number of stars allowed per operator, but the majority of STR operators in Long Beach actually only operate one unit. So just as an example, if I live in Long Beach for six months of the year and wanted to rent that unit the remaining six months as a short term rental unhosted that would be allowed as a non primary residence str. Now this slide show is what we had intended to accomplish with the ordinance by allowing stores and accessory dwelling units, which was in line with the majority of community feedback. But before we get too attached. Effective January 1st, 2020. New State Law Assembly bills 68 and 81 prohibit short term rentals and accessory dwelling units. So this is new information to us. This is our new reality. This law does not affect duplexes. So in this slide, as an example, if the operator resides in either one of the duplex units, which would be the bottom right, they would still be able to operate the other unit as an STR. So for multifamily developments, the number of units that can be operated as a non primary residence star has been limited to avoid situations like ghost hotels, where entire apartment buildings essentially become de facto hotels. So for example, in a multi-family dwelling unit with 2 to 10 units, the city would allow up to one non primary residence STR or 11 to 50 units. We would allow up to 10% or 51 to 100 units. We would allow up to 12%. And for 101 or more units, the city would allow up to 15% of the units to be operated as a non primary str. And also an apartment owner or homeowners association can notify the city that stars are not allowed in their buildings. And in that situation, the city would not approve any SDR registrations in that development. So this screen is just a visual representation of the previous slide. The darker blue units would be representing the non primary units that we would allow as short term rentals. Petition to prohibit Unhosted staffers throughout the community outreach process. There was a push for including some sort of neighborhood based opt out process to prohibit Unhosted staffers in certain neighborhoods. Although this is not a common provision in other cities, some Long Beach residents presented compelling arguments for including this option. The way it would work is at least two thirds of the property owners must sign a petition to prohibit Unhosted stays. If approved, the city would provide notice of a restriction to all residential property owners in the affected census tract, and the restriction would remain, in effect uncontested for the first three years, at which point the restriction could be lifted by a similar two thirds petition process. City registration and annual fee will be required. A city issued registration number valid for one year would be renewed on an annual basis. The city registration number must be included in all advertisements and listings, and a citywide registration cap of 1% of the city's housing stock would be allowed as non primary residence staffers. The size of the city's housing stock is based on demographic reports posted on the California Department of Finance website and updated annually. As of January 2019. The housing stock of Long Beach was 177,378 housing units. So the city would only issue STR registrations for up to 773 units. In September of 2019, the registration fee was set at $250 per registration per year for the current fiscal year. Here are a list of some basic regulations, such as the transient occupancy tax applies. Occupancy will be limited to two guests per bedroom, plus two with a maximum of ten staffers will be prohibited and restricted affordable housing units , dormitories and 80 youths. A landlord consent form required if unit is subject to a rental agreement. SDR limited event permit. This would be a new permit for the city. It would allow hosts to accommodate guests in excess of the ten person maximum for up to 624 hour periods per year. Most would be required to notify all neighbors ten days in advance of the events and outdoor quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. would still apply. Lessons learned from other cities and municipalities that have established STR regulations is that in order for the program to be successful, you really do need the cooperation of the hosting platforms , particularly for removing listings that have not registered or have had their registrations revoked. So the hosting platform responsibilities include hosting platforms cannot complete any booking transactions for an STR if notified by the city that a valid ACR registration number has not been issued to the operator. Platforms shall remove any listings upon notification from the city and the requirement to provide some pretty basic information on their bookings reported on a monthly basis. In addition to working with the hosting platforms, enforcement of the regulations is key to a successful program. Violations will be subject to a $1,000 fine per day, except a 30 day warning period would be provided for advertising a store without a valid registration upon issuance of three fines, the ACR registration may be revoked. Violations include, but are not limited to failure of the local contact to take action to a complaint within one hour. Completing a booking transaction without a valid, valid city issued registration number. Violations of STR maximum occupancy conduct or activity that constitute a public nuisance. And the ordinance also establishes a mechanism to revoke registrations of individual bad actors. These are some common themes we've been hearing lately. The residents continue to voice concerns over party houses, and the way this ordinance addresses that is establishing the maximum occupancy restriction and the creation of the new STR limited event permit, property owner and consent and liability. The verification of property owner consent would be dealt with in an administrative process. Part of the implementation program and some hosting platforms have expressed resistance to data sharing language in the ordinance, and we believe that the language is consistent with the recent court rulings and stand by it. And some requested language changes to strengthen platform accountability. Kind of the opposite of the previous one. And thus we believe that the existing language is legally robust and they recommend leaving it. To operate within the adopted fiscal year, 20 budget staff was tasked with developing a delayed or phased implementation plan. That plan looks like this. The ordinance takes effect 181 days after adoption, and the initial registration period begins then during the 181 day program. Program materials will be developed and enforcement begins 180 days after the initial registration period and one year after enforcement begins. Staff will report back to council with data on program operations, and at that time we can make changes as needed. So next steps pending council decision tonight would be to adopt an ordinance amending Title 21 of the Limited Municipal Code segment, the local Coastal Program Amendments to California Coastal Commission for approval. Develop implementation guidelines with input from stakeholders. This concludes our presentation. We are happy to answer questions.
Speaker 2: Fine.
Speaker 0: Mrs. Janine. Yes.
Speaker 12: I've already said what I want to say before public comment, but I think I'm somewhat surprised that you want to.
Speaker 3: Make any comments.
Speaker 5: Sure, I'm anxious to hear from the public tonight as well. I represent, obviously part of the city that is a very popular area for home sharing platforms and home sharing opportunities. And so I know I have a lot of residents here tonight. You don't all have to speak. I want you. You're welcome to. But can I? Can the third district residents stand up so we can get a sense of who's here from the third district? Okay. So let me just tell you that in the six years I've been on council, I've never had this many residents be interested in coming to a council meeting. So thank you for being here. You may be seated, but I do want to share that as a result of the input you all have provided me on all aspects of this issue, I have some concerns regarding scars. I raised those initially, and I'm grateful that staff was able to incorporate some of the amendments that I proposed originally when this came forth. And I expect that in collaboration with my colleague, Council Member Pearce will be able to hopefully get to a place where quality of life impacts housing stock and the ability to home share are all viewed in the totality and we come to a resolution that will hopefully meet our goals and needs with all of those categories.
Speaker 0: So when I remove the sign, we have over 80 speakers. So we're going to kind of cut this down to one minute if it's okay with my colleagues. One minute, please. You know my colleagues. 30 seconds.
Speaker 3: Could we do that?
Speaker 12: Can we do 90 for the first ten? Just a minute is hard. Let's just very technically ask.
Speaker 0: Let's vote on it. You guys want to do a minute? I would. Please raise your hand. I do want to do a minute. Okay. Yeah. One, two, three, four. But l. Minute or three.
Speaker 12: It was proposing 90 seconds for the first ten and a minute after that.
Speaker 0: I asked one how many would like to do? One minute, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. Okay, we have a majority vote. So now would you please call the names?
Speaker 1: We have the first five line up at the podium. When coming up to the podium, please state your name for the record. Jeremy Arnold Tung. Q. Jeremy and as Jim Samuel and Victor Sanchez. Jeremy Arnell. Thank you, Jerry. And as Jim Samuel and Victor Sanchez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Jeremy Arnold, Unitarian Universalist Church member and resident of District one. There are many problems with the ordinance as proposed as it's as I see it, and it's sort of hard to know where to begin. But I'm here to express a deep commitment to a 500 unit cap is incredibly important if we're going to protect our affordable housing stock here in Long Beach. And with 30 seconds left, I'd just like to to offer, you know, the example of New Orleans, where I lived before I moved here to Long Beach rules that they went into effect on December 1st, limited short term rentals in residential areas to owner occupied properties only in place, caps on rentals in commercial and mixed use buildings and a ban them outright in most of the French Quarter in the entire Garden District. So Long Beach and we should be leading on responsible tourism. It should be leading on housing. And really, cities like New Orleans are looking in the rearview mirror. Thank you. In the dust.
Speaker 0: And if you find yourself by yourself, I want you have say I said one minute, you have 54 seconds. You can leave that other to someone else, except you can yell or swim in 3 seconds to someone else. Right.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Janice and I've been a resident of Long Beach in the third district for over 30 years. And I support the short term rentals and the vacation rentals in this whole process that we've taken to get to this point. And I've read the proposed ordinance in detail, and I would like to make one point that I'm strongly against the opt out ban through census tract petition process. I think it's a very challenging to enforce and it pits neighbors against each other. And then I would submit, where do you stop that? Other ordinances could then say, I don't like this, let's do this. And then you've got the community itself ruling instead of the council in the mayor. And so with that, thank you.
Speaker 0: 15. It's too late. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Hi there. My name is Jim Samuel and from District three and I've grown up in Long Beach and I'm enables island resident in currently renovating my duplex home. It's been it's going to be my retirement home that I wish to share with my family friends along with visitors who would love to see Belmont Shore and the whole Long Beach entire area agreed that the short term rental industry should be regulated but with limits.
Speaker 2: Although I would be a.
Speaker 6: Host owner, I oppose the opt out provision as it pits.
Speaker 2: Neighbors against neighbors. People living in.
Speaker 6: A particular sense of track should not have the ability to regulate other homeowners. Sharing my property as a short term rental will bring more tax dollars to the city. This is with the transit resident occupancy tax people spending money in local restaurants.
Speaker 2: Businesses and entertainment venues such as the Queen Mary Cream of the Pacific. Just to name a few. Please vote no on the opt out portion.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next year.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Victor Sanchez of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs in a Healthy Community. This item, if it's voted the way that it is, it would put financial interests of short term rentals over that of long term tenants. And we urge you not to do that. I want to focus on three things. One, the total units a host should be able to put on to the short term rental side should be no more than two one primary, one non primary. It's hard to believe that someone who owns three properties will still need to make additional income on the side to make ends meet, especially when they can have long term tenants in those units and still make a fair return. Two We need to have a hard cap of 500 for non primary units. Non primary units are what impact the housing market. Most in percentage is dangerous because it legislates an annual increase. If we assume that the city of Long Beach will build more housing, which it must. And three we want a reasonable and accessible opt out mechanism for neighborhoods. 50% plus one to property owners in a given census tract is reasonable when you take into consideration the thousands of property owners that exist in one census tract. And if a community wants to change that in 2 to 3 years, they should be able to because there should also be a 180 day rolling petitioning period. Please do not vote to cannibalize existing housing stock, especially after we voted down a bond that would have built more affordable housing here in the city of one.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Is tongue qi here. So the next five, please line up. John Choi. Q Jamari is Susan Morales, Ofelia Gonzalez and Myron Wolin. John Choi. Q Jamari hey, Susan Morales, Ofelia Gonzalez and Myron Wolin.
Speaker 2: Great. John Choi, policy manager for Airbnb. Thank you so much for the opportunity to move forward with regulations. Airbnb is excited to partner with the City of Long Beach on reasonable regulations. Just a couple of notes for me. In April of last year, we entered into a tax collection agreement, and in the short eight months since that agreement took effect, we have remitted to nearly $2 million in new taxes.
Speaker 5: Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Is it possible, Mr. Vice Mayor, that we can ask the audience to be respectful of all speakers? I don't appreciate the hissing. Everyone deserves a right to speak here.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Could you guys please follow those lines of what is, of course, out of total respect? Please, you guys. We asked you back. Thank you. Go ahead. So you have another minute.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. So, as of April 2019, we have remitted in the eight months since through November of last year, we have remitted nearly $2 million in new taxes to the city of Long Beach, which can be used for incredibly important public services. Our model is also something that empowers local Long Beach residents. Hosts keep 97% of the proceeds and the 93% of our hosts direct guests that visit Long Beach to local small businesses helping to grow that tax base as well. I wanted to state on the record that Airbnb is committed to supporting the city's enforcement scheme. We've been working closely with the staff. It has been a very productive conversation to take the lessons that we've learned from what has worked in other cities and what has not worked in other cities, and bring that to ensure high levels of compliance here in Long Beach and wanted to urge this Council to support the staff recommendation. We feel that it is a reasonable balance between protecting housing, ensuring quality of life and supporting economic growth in the tourism economy here in Long Beach. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next we go.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Pastor Q. I live here in Long Beach, past the D church when I was in Skid Row.
Speaker 2: And I've seen.
Speaker 6: People fluctuate from Long Beach to Skid Row. I've seen some of.
Speaker 2: My folks in Skid Row here in Long Beach. We know that we haven't had a housing crisis. We know that speculators drive up cost.
Speaker 6: Is this this city? Many of our people, especially people of color.
Speaker 2: As it relates to the numbers, you look at the national numbers, 40% of the folks who are homeless in the nation, black in the state black. I mean, we say in L.A. that how homelessness is a racial justice issue. So when we look at what's happening here is that we have already displaced people out of this city. We're not talking about protecting housing. They're already gone. People are already gone.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks, Miguel.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is.
Speaker 2: Susan Morales and I'm here on behalf of United Here Local 11. I have held my job as a banquet captain for the Long Beach Convention Center for the last 17 years.
Speaker 6: I plan on doing so for many years to come. It is your responsibility to protect our housing and the thousands of workers that are serving this city by adopting an ordinance that has strong enforcement and overseeing and protecting our housing. In your excitement to encourage our new tourism, please do not forget about the workers that have made the Long Beach special.
Speaker 2: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next week.
Speaker 3: I'll be providing translation.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Oh, let me know. Yeah. So you, me and brother unite a local basilica service.
Speaker 1: Servicio Elementals. Hello. My name's.
Speaker 3: Ofelia Gonzalez. I'm a member of Unite Here Local 11.
Speaker 5: The union represents.
Speaker 3: Hotel workers and food service workers.
Speaker 1: In my hotel durante dos Santos the long way.
Speaker 3: And I worked at the Hotel Maya for two years and I lived in Long Beach for 19 years. So the California thing in the event that my colleagues. Southern California is in metal in the middle of a horrible housing crisis. Musical legacy. Your animals. They need a piano.
Speaker 1: In concert with us. But can't they see as.
Speaker 3: Long as more efficient? My coworkers and I have had to move aside in finding vacant and accessible and affordable housing in Long Beach is very difficult. Let us have an alternate you, Ms.. Massey. Short term rentals have not made this easier. Last year, though, I kept ribbon la police and my solider. Possibly. We pride.
Speaker 1: Ourselves.
Speaker 3: In peace. I urge you to pass the strongest possible policy today to save our future generations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Speaker Excuse me, sir. Before you get started, can we call the next rabbi, please?
Speaker 1: We have Tom Todd Thurman and Evans Goldstein, Karen Resi and Nadia Tushnet. You please come up in line and line up at the podium, please.
Speaker 0: What's. Sir?
Speaker 2: Hello, I'm Myron. Woman I'm president of Long Beach. Great grandmothers, and I'm speaking here as a member of Clue Clergy in Lady United for Economic Justice. Basically, short term rentals eat up housing stock at the expense of long term tenants. We are in a housing crunch and we need all the units we can get to keep our housing prices down. We cannot allow short term rentals to grow at the expense of long term tenants. Especially we were in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. You all said you were in favor of affordable housing, short term rentals, remove housing for transients, not Long Beach residents. We should worry about housing needs of Long Beach residents. Long Beach is behind on our affordable housing goals. We need to be building more housing, not allowing our housing stock to disappear, to be used for short term rentals. Short term rentals can incentivize homeowners.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. One. Yes.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Anna Evans Goldstein and I'm a researcher with Unite Here Local 11. I'm encouraging you to pass a stronger short term rental ordinance than is currently proposed by staff. Long Beach is behind on its housing goals. The most recent report Long Beach submitted to the state was behind by almost 5500 units just in the permitting process, let alone being built. This is even before the new arena goals. We can't afford to.
Speaker 10: Be scaling up, taking units off the market as they're.
Speaker 9: Being built. Long Beach was ranked third worst in the nation when it comes to rental affordability. We must address the conversion of vital housing units into de facto hotels by creating a strong short term rental policy. Today, our region is at a crucial turning point that will either see the increasing numbers of residents priced out of their apartments, unable to stay in the communities that they have lived for years. Or cities will take a stand in comprehensively regulating a market that was originally intended to be a home sharing industry. In that spirit, please be intentional today about your decision and do not take a light touch with this.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Karen Reside, resident of the First District in a proud Long Beach Gray Panther. One Airbnb site has over 1500.
Speaker 9: Units registered for.
Speaker 3: Rent. I mean, we don't even have an ordinance yet. If you figure there's to be at least two people, that's 3000 people are not housed and we don't even have an ordinance yet. We need to have really strong protections if we are going to do.
Speaker 9: This and really limit the the units that are able to do this. I mean, when I was growing up.
Speaker 3: Students from Cal State Long Beach used to rent houses down in Belmont Shore, and they would have six students in a house. That option is not available to our students anymore.
Speaker 9: The majority of this Airbnb.
Speaker 3: Is managed by corporate interests, 80% not. Local residents. So who do we want telling us how our city should be? Out of the area. Corporations like the Blackstone in the Phenix.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Much.
Speaker 0: You push 1/2, call the other. You can go ten now. Just call 1/2 this week.
Speaker 1: Todd Irvin. Doug Domingo for US Day. Anna Christianson, Pete Marsh, Sydney Clancy and Max Norris. Doug Domingo and I Christenson, Pete Marsh, Cindy Kennedy and Max Norris.
Speaker 0: Winslow.
Speaker 3: Okay. My name is Nader Tushnet, and I've been living in the third district for 30 years. This month, it's 30 years. It's the longest I've lived anywhere in my life. I want to speak about two things. One is the quality of life in neighborhoods. Many residents in and around Long Beach never signed up to live near a de facto hotel. And two, a phase. We all talk about parking all the time, the parking pressures and the added noise pollution. I live in a townhouse and if when there is a party going on anywhere on my block, I know it forever. And these short term rentals that become party houses must make people crazy. And I also want to point out many of those are, in fact, the corporate.
Speaker 9: Owned partner.
Speaker 3: Rental units. They are not owner occupied or anything like that. And I'm done. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm Doug Domingo for a stay and I am past president of the CFA. Thank you. City Council Mr. Andrews has left. First of all, compliments to the city development staff for the excellent report. We all know the problems of stars throughout Southern California. Even in non-prime neighborhoods like Long Beach, we've seen the deterioration of neighborhoods, the increase in rents and loss of housing stock. Three things I'll point out. One. 1700 units is way too much. That's going to impact the entire city. Second of all, neighborhoods should be allowed to opt out at a 50 plus one amount. And third. This is not about sharing primary residences. This is about corporations who are buying up Long Beach housing and hurting our housing stock. Thank you very much. Or.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: And of course, Hanson.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Anna Christensen, resident of the third District, are in discussing this proposition this week. I have a friend whose sister was evicted from her apartment house. It was entirely converted to short term rentals. And I have a tenant. Her friend was evicted. I think that. Short term rentals can operate in a city, but we have to preserve available housing in livable neighborhoods. We have to support the right of homeowners to make a reasonable profit from their owner occupied properties, but prevent large scale conversion of commercial rental properties to residential units. Protect our neighborhoods from becoming destinations for tourists who have no investment in our community culture. And I would like to say that. Remember how much you hesitated to even consider. A bond to provide affordable housing. Two weeks ago.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 9: Don't be afraid to hesitate. Tonight, please.
Speaker 1: We have Pete Marsh and Cindy can for you and then Max Norris, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council staff, citizens. Pete Marsh I'm moving to Long Beach from Redding right now and bringing my small business here. We're in escrow for a house in second district with a duplex. It was kind of a surprise. Not exactly, not what we were looking for, but we would like to have the flexibility to do either long term or short term rentals. I hear the good arguments about housing stock. You have a reasonable protection in the bill that I heard that I heard earlier against the corporate mass ownership. I think that's good. I and essentially, I think a reasonable STR ordinance that allows a peer to peer economy, such as we see in cars and in the gig economy and jobs, is important. Thank you. I'm doing. Can I get those 30 seconds on? My name is that. I came from a sixth district resident. I grew up in 90806 zip code where the average income is $20,000. The needs of my community are much different than 90803, where the average income is over $120,000. You know, living in an area where 80% of people are renters, it's going to impact this. It's things like this impact that's way more than, you know, other parts of the city. So other parts of the city have different needs. I think for areas such as mine, there should be some kind of means cap, there should be some kind of median income cap so that if the area is has a certain lower income, then there should be a shorter amount of rentals available for for starters, an issue that I have is that I think that maybe there's I'm okay with people renting out the duplex of their home, their primary home. But I think it's a bit excessive to have so many extra properties to be doing the short term rentals. So I hope this is made stronger. Thank you.
Speaker 6: 1/2, please. You. Would you like to call the rest of the next five?
Speaker 1: Elsa tongue. Manuela martinez. Catherine Lavoisier. Jean Young and Maria de Soto.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. You may proceed, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you, counsel. My name is Max Norris, resident of District One. I'm here today to speak to the housing crisis. And this bill, this ordinance, rather, should have an opt out at 50 plus 1% and cap it at the very most 500 units. We heard the speaker tonight talking about over 1500 units taken off the market by Airbnb right now. This is unacceptable. And people are sleeping on the streets right outside of this building in our parks, around the community. I understand that people have investments tied up in this, but honestly, I don't care. And I don't think that the majority of the city cares. And I think if this council doesn't move to stop this, that people will start moving to council people. I see my time.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: I would like those 15 seconds of possible. In my 15 seconds.
Speaker 6: Go right ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. Good evening, Honorable City Council members. My name is Ailsa Chang, research and policy analyst with Long Beach Forward. I don't know how many times I've said it or how many times it has to be said, but I will say it again. Long Beach is in a housing and homelessness crisis. Two weeks ago, this council failed to act to end homelessness with homes through a local affordable housing funding measure. Tonight, Council once again has the opportunity to act to alleviate the housing crisis and prevent the loss of long term housing units. Don't waste this opportunity to do the right thing. Specifically, we're asking for three things. First, two total units, one primary, one non primary. Don't put profit over people, especially when corporate property owners are buying properties for the sole purpose of placing them on short term rental sites. Second, a hard cap of five 500 non primary units city wide. Any more than that short term units will any more short term units than that will diminish our housing stock every single year and push vulnerable families out of their homes and onto the streets. Thank you. Members, again, we are in a housing crisis. Let's act like it. Do the right thing. Hi, my name is Jean Young and I've lived in District eight for 26 years. I'm on the leadership team of the Long Beach Hosting Club. We meet monthly to share ideas and best practices and hosting. I'd like to have all the hosts who are here tonight stand. Okay. So we've had three years of public meetings and workshops and what have we found out that people overwhelmingly are supportive of long term residents gaining a little extra income by hosting guests as long as there are rules and the host is responsible. So no optional ban on Unhosted staffers through the petition process. 99.9 99% of hosts are responsible citizens. They care about their properties, hosting help seniors pay property taxes to stay in the neighborhoods they love. And it helps millennials get their foot in the door to afford their first property. So noise and nuisance complaints.
Speaker 0: When.
Speaker 3: Fewer than 1% of all complaints are optional, ban on unhosted stars is not needed. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Manolo Martinez. I'm with Leave Room and I am a long term renter in District two. Short term rentals take away available available rental units from the already depleted affordable.
Speaker 3: Housing market stock.
Speaker 1: Long Beach is behind on our affordable housing goals. We need to focus on creating more affordable housing instead of allowing our housing.
Speaker 3: Stock to disappear to short term rentals. Most short term rentals in Long Beach are unhosted or entire homes. This is not home sharing.
Speaker 1: This depletes our housing stock and puts pressure on tenants already.
Speaker 3: Vulnerable to a tough rental market.
Speaker 1: The ordinance, as drafted, allows for one host to have up to.
Speaker 3: Three properties on the short term rental market. It's absurd to believe that a person.
Speaker 1: Who owns three properties is in dire need of the rental income to make.
Speaker 3: Ends meet. Amending this ordinance from 3 to.
Speaker 1: 2 total units.
Speaker 3: Is a fair compromise. Community members should also have an option to determine whether or not they want a short term rental in their neighborhood. Many of us signed a lease or bought property to live in a home with other members of our community, not to live next to a near legal de facto hotel and facing additional hardships with parking and noise pollution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next we hear.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is narrator and I have worked at the Hyatt Regency in Long Beach for the last six years. And I've lived in Long Beach my whole life. As someone who works and lives in Long Beach, I have seen the effects of short term rentals have on Long Beach, and I've seen so many of my coworkers.
Speaker 12: Be displaced in the same city.
Speaker 3: That they work in. The time is now for Long Beach to adopt an ordinance that is a true reflection of what the residents and workers of Long Beach want for this city. Other cities, such as Santa monica, consider the grave impacts of short term rentals have on their housing, stock and hotel industries and made a good ordinance the city council, housing stock and hotel industries have sorry the City Council of Long Beach has a responsibility to do the same. Do not allow more of the non primary.
Speaker 12: Residents to be added.
Speaker 3: To short term rental market and to be taken away from families like mine that struggle.
Speaker 12: To find.
Speaker 3: Housing in Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next, you please read the next slide, please.
Speaker 1: I'll say Soto or Leslie.
Speaker 0: And can you please line up when she's calling your name? Just line up.
Speaker 1: And chosen Marine Po Jose Soto or Leslie and Cantrell. Ken Charlson and Marine Paul.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Vice Mayor Andrews and Council members. My name is Catherine Levasseur. I'm a resident of Huntington Beach and a founding member of Huntington Beach. Short Term Rental Alliance. Tonight, I speak on behalf of our members to say that we stand in support of short term rental stakeholders in Long Beach. We know from our experiences that short term rentals provide tourism revenue deep, deeper into our local neighborhoods. Every neighborhood should be allowed the opportunity to have short term rentals in their neighborhood. I personally have offered short term rental stays in Huntington Beach since 2015. Many of these stays were from relatives of my neighbors. It seems that grandparents want to stay within walking distance of their children and grandchildren. Every neighborhood in Long Beach should have the opportunity to have short term rentals in their neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hello. My name is Josie. So I am here on behalf of Unite Here Local 11. The incorporation of certain short term rentals ordinance for our city must be done with intention, caution and scrutiny. Government policies around short term rentals should not take. Sorry, I should not make it easy for people from outside our community to come to Long Beach, take affordable housing away from the workers in Long Beach and rent it to tourists just passing through. We are limiting the amount of houses people have, leaving many people homeless. I urge Council to consider the well-documented impacts of short term rentals have on workers in our city and adopt an ordinance that softens the impact of short term rentals than it has on our families and our cities and our workers.
Speaker 9: I carelessly here. I want to speak in terms of if you do pass this tonight, I would like to see very active code enforcement and a kind of a three strikes law. If an Airbnb has a location that violates the ordinance three times, they should lose their license. Secondly, if when I've looked at the pros and cons on this, it does bring business into the city and offers homeowners and property owners additional funds. It brings them there to tax. But on the negative side, removing housing from the rental market frightens me. With the state legislation that's coming forward and demanding additional housing out of us. So I'm more on the pros and cons side than the pro side. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening. And Cantrell. I remember when this was Granny.
Speaker 9: Flats and this sounded reasonable. Put a little house on your property and let Granny live there. And then it became an Airbnb. Rent it out so you can get a little extra money. But the original law that you passed said the owner had to live on the property. Now you're allowing an owner of three properties and he only has to be on one of them, not a 90 days of the year. As I understand it, he doesn't even have to be there at all. The purpose of having someone on the property is to be able to make sure the noise element is is followed because these will become party houses. And if all the people in Thank you District three want this, let them have it. I'm not five and I don't want it.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 0: I'm Kent Rossen, past president of the Homeowner's Naples Improvement Association.
Speaker 6: And I'm here representing Naples, not.
Speaker 0: Know them personally. But anyway, we have a certain quality of.
Speaker 6: Life in Naples.
Speaker 0: That is something that we regard.
Speaker 6: As is a high priority.
Speaker 0: We don't need.
Speaker 2: Short term rentals.
Speaker 0: And we've had now.
Speaker 2: Neighbor against neighbor.
Speaker 0: Which that what it creates, it creates things. So, I mean, if the rest of.
Speaker 2: The city wants.
Speaker 0: This, then bye bye, give it to them. But we don't.
Speaker 6: Want her to. Naples we took.
Speaker 0: A thousand representatives and we had.
Speaker 2: A thousand signatures stating that we do not want short term rentals in Naples and there's only 1200 homes. So you see the impact of that. You know, we.
Speaker 6: Have a special community that we like and we would like to leave it that way. I've had firsthand experiences.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You call it the next group of individuals.
Speaker 1: Pedro DeLeon. E.B. White. Laura Van Doren. Alan Crawford. And Johanna Cunningham.
Speaker 3: I'm Maureen Poe, and I've spoken to the council before on many issues. And and you've always opened your arms to us to help us carve out the things that we feel we need. And one of the things that seems to be appearing is that the short term rental is continually causing problems between people. I know we had a short term rental across from us for a year and there were parties all the time.
Speaker 9: We didn't know who was there and and who belong there.
Speaker 3: Even in being able to talk to the host long distance and say your tenants are acting up, did nothing, and we presently have a short term rental behind us and we never know who's going to be in the neighborhood or the community.
Speaker 9: But it seems like we could have the.
Speaker 3: Thing go through with some carving out of areas where people actually have signed petitions and don't want to have the short term rentals. Thank you so.
Speaker 2: Much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Laura Lincoln. The proposed ordinance as drafted is a lose lose proposition for the residents of Long Beach, causing neighborhood degradation and is acknowledged in the staff report severe adverse consequences and the availability of affordable housing. One of the most troubling items is the proposal to allow investors to buy multiple properties to operate as short term rentals 365 days a year in effect, and operating unregulated hotels anywhere in our city. The problems are compounded by the unprecedented and frankly, stunning provision that would allow large scale parties and events at these homes and residential neighborhoods. No other town in California does such. Even more troubling is that every one of the investor owned short term rental properties would otherwise be available as long term rentals to local residents. This Council should also be aware that the proposed ordinance is in sharp contrast to the rules adopted in most other California cities, which prohibit or restrict non owner occupied short term rentals. I urge the Council to have the opportunity to review those rules as well as the impact on housing before making ruling here.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Council Members. Ellen Crawford. I support Sharon housing the housing hosted chair, but strongly oppose the ordinance as written. With this ordinance we are flying in the face of what our neighboring communities are doing. In contrast to what the woman up here is saying, stars are banned in Huntington Beach and stars are banned in SEAL Beach . Stars are severely limited in Santa monica and stars are banned in Manhattan Beach. I have an example from Laguna Beach on. Just read you really quickly. This is what Laguna Beach said three months ago. Visitors who can escalate the demand for city services create adverse impacts in residential areas. Estuaries can be associated with that depletion of cities, limited supply of multiple family residential units, incidents involving excessive noise, disorderly conduct, vandalism, overcrowding, traffic congestion can be associated with SDR units require response from city services, police and fire. I don't think we've taken those things into account in this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Before the speaker. City clerk, can you read the next five?
Speaker 1: Is Pedro DeLeon here? E.B. White, Johanna Cunningham, Adrian Medrano, Viana Noble, Kathleen Brady, Heather Rosman and Samantha martinez.
Speaker 6: Thank you. You may proceed.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening, city council members. My name is Johanna Cunningham and I'm the CEO for the National Short Term Rental. I am here to speak against the opt out provision. I do believe that it does pit neighbor against neighbor. We already have that coming forward. I am a little confused, though. I do have to say that I don't see short term rentals being the word short term, taking off housing for long term residents. Many of the owners that I know are providing short term. So it is a short term proposition for them. I have owners that I know that are using these short term rentals to improve the other properties. If they have a multi-unit building to be able to repair and protect these know these tenants as well as not to raise their rents. So I just don't see the confusion that that surprises me. We do bring tourist income and dollars into the city, and I hope that the city council will continue to address this and see.
Speaker 2: Adriano Medrano, District two resident Airbnb has allowed my wife to stay home with her newborn. The little extra income has allowed my wife to raise our baby full time. I'd like to add that short term rentals are owned and managed by the people. Contrary to what you're hearing about corporate interests, we are not multibillion dollar corporations. Platforms allow individuals like me to run a small business similar to like Uber and Lyft. According to Lodging magazine, the hotel industry had record profits of $80 billion in 2018, but yet opposed measure that VW which local 11 really proposed. And just to add to that, you know with that kind of money and other backing anti short term regulation. So the proposed regulation addresses the concerns of those who worry about party houses and or corporate greed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next.
Speaker 3: I'm Kathleen Brady. I'd like to advocate that the.
Speaker 1: Non primary unhosted.
Speaker 3: Stickers be limited to.
Speaker 1: One property.
Speaker 3: Not to. Long Beach is one of the most interesting coastal cities in California. We have a great diversity of people.
Speaker 1: And of income providing to.
Speaker 3: Large. An amount of our limited housing for tourism will cost just. As a community and as a cohesive city. Thank you. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Heather Rossman with the Long Beach Hospitality Alliance representing area hotels. We are here today to ask you to enact sensible and reasonable regulation on the short term rental market in Long Beach. We agree with our employees and team members that the short term rental industry must be regulated in order to preserve housing stock in the city. While Long Beach leaders strive to enact solutions to end the homeless crisis. We also urge you to limit the short term renting on one's primary residence and limit the number of non primary.
Speaker 9: Residences to.
Speaker 3: 500 units only, and cap the number of short term rental nights to 90 days per year. This ensures existing housing stock will be maintained for Long Beach families and not converted into de facto hotels.
Speaker 9: Which are not held the strict standards and laws of.
Speaker 3: Hotel operators. With the upcoming Olympics and other large scale sporting events and conferences. We must be cautious when deciding how many homes one can put out on the short term market. We must not enact policies which incentivize people to buy up housing stock and hold it for short term rentals. Thank you. Long term residents. My name is Lana Noble. I'm here tonight as a resident of downtown and also as an a member and a loft owner in in District one in downtown. I'm hearing an amazing different alliance of interests here, and I sure hope the council is hearing it is. The resident from Naples said in downtown we've done a survey of our folks who are 80% renters and for different reasons. We have a different ambiance and we don't want non hosted short term rentals. We already are priced out of the rentals and those of us that own and have lots, we are governed by what are called C, C and R's in our multi-unit buildings and some of us have been lucky in that we have got rules that say you ain't going to rent for less than 30 days, but you're going to have an impact on.
Speaker 0: Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Much. Of people. And this is a neighborhood issue. A community issue.
Speaker 0: Assuming she.
Speaker 3: Does not.
Speaker 0: Think.
Speaker 3: You have private property. You. Do you in a coma?
Speaker 0: People ask you, we call the next five.
Speaker 1: Can I have Diane Sandstrom, Myra Garcia, Cortez, Tamara Romeo, April Rivas and Dana Bill. Hi. My name is Samantha martinez. I represent.
Speaker 3: The American Hotel and Lodging Association.
Speaker 1: And I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.
Speaker 3: American Hotel Lodging Association is extremely proud to be.
Speaker 1: Part of this diverse coalition.
Speaker 3: Of labor, community organizations and housing organizations. And we all applaud your efforts to regulate short term rentals. We know Long Beach is a very special and a very desirable place for visitors and tourists to come and enjoy. But Long Beach is also home to, I believe, about a half a million people who value their communities, our quality of life, housing affordability and availability. That's why we feel the Council must pass these short term rental regulations to protect the quality of life, housing and communities, as well as good paying hospitality jobs. We support limiting short term rental to one's primary residents, and we believe that people should be able to do this in their own home and make revenue. We are concerned about allowing this in non primary residents. If you do allow them non.
Speaker 5: Primary residents, we urge.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Only one and capped at 500. Thank you. Good evening. My name is.
Speaker 1: Maya Ocasio-Cortez and I am with District two.
Speaker 3: And the Coalition for Good Jobs. Short term.
Speaker 1: Rentals can incentivize homeowners to convert residential units.
Speaker 3: Into ad hoc hotels. This especially impacts vulnerable populations like seniors and students. As myself, most staffers in Long Beach, our entire homes are unhosted units rather than home sharing owner occupied residences. This depletes our housing stock and puts pressure on our tenants already vulnerable to a tough rental market. Ms.. Pearce, you started this.
Speaker 1: Agenda saying that tourism in Long Beach is rising, but how can we.
Speaker 3: Focus on tourism if we can't accommodate our own people? I was recently affected by an eviction order and I was close to losing my home. I do not want other people to go through what I went through. I have a disabled brother and I speak for a handicapped seniors and all students that cannot thank you. Hi. My name is April Reavis, and I'm sorry that so many of you are opposed to Airbnb. It has been a dream come true for me. It's allowed me to purchase a home and supplement making the mortgage payment by having guests. My experience has only been positive, and I think my neighbors would also say that I've worked hard to improve my property. I'm a good neighbor and I'm. Proud of the city I live in. I want to share it with guests. And I'm not a big corporation. I'm arranging flowers and fruit bowls and writing nice notes and my. House is not a party house. I think I've improved the neighborhood. My guests are often my neighbors whose grandmother wants to come visit, who needs an extra bedroom. I laughingly call my Airbnb the extra bedroom for all of Long Beach.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Tamara Romero, District ten, resident At a time when our city faces historic crises around homelessness, gentrification and displacement, destroying housing, stock and displacing tenants is akin to pouring gasoline on a raging fire. I'm here today to talk to you about short term rentals. Short term rentals, eat up housing stock at the expense of long term tenants like myself. Nobody would be able to pay more than two properties and the short term rental market. There has to be a hard cap along with a way for neighborhoods to opt out. No more than 500 non primary units should be allowed to make sure we don't further put pressure on vulnerable families. This is also about the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Many residents in and around Long Beach never signed up to face additional parking pressures or additional noise pollution or fires, which is something another resident of our city experienced at one of these short term rentals. Thank you, my friend. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Diane Sundstrom. I live in Belmont Heights and 60 seconds is pretty short. So hopefully you've read the statement that I submitted, but I'm strongly opposed to the short term rental ordinance. As written, I support short term rentals in owner occupied or hosted stays. However, allowing up to three short term units is excessive by any measure, and this ordinance is being considered at a time when the mayor says we need 8000 new housing units. Christine Pettit was quoted in the grunion as saying the city is in a severe housing and homelessness crisis. Rent has written to risen 28% in the last decade. The rental vacancy rate has gone from 5.2 to 3.8% in the last decade. And our homeless population is about 19%. So it seems to me that the last thing Long Beach needs is to lose housing. But that's what this ordinance will do. Development Services estimates, we estimate we could lose like 1900 units. So I think this ordinance, it's not good governance.
Speaker 0: Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Much. And that the requirement for Long Beach residents should be reinstated.
Speaker 9: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Dana Bell. I'm a 47 year resident of Naples. I think there is a an enormous difference between hosted short term and unhosted short term. And I'd like to say that I don't believe that unhosted short term rentals belong in any neighborhood. They destroy the cohesiveness. They are hurting the rental affordable rentals in Long Beach, in our neighborhood, on our block, the 5700 block of Camp Walk. In the last year and a half, we have lost two single family homes and they are now both party houses. So I hope that you understand this difference and there is a great deal more thought put to unhosted short term rentals and the damage it does to the communities and the damage it does to our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Tom Cruise called the Nets and Anderson.
Speaker 1: Braden Phillips, Gerard Anderson, Dave Have and Hank Snapper Anderson. Braden Phillips. Gerald Anderson. Dave Have. And Hank Snapper. And Anderson.
Speaker 3: One minute. We have lived next door to a short term rental in Naples for several years, renting illegally. And I can tell you it's a nightmare from hell. When aged ten, strangers arrive every few days and a business is created three feet away from you next door. All kinds of things happen. Partiers drinking, drugging, strangers wandering around day and night. You just can't imagine who in the house next door to you. Instead of becoming a family, house becomes a business. Please don't allow those. I know in many surrounding cities have now totally banned unhosted rentals. Now Unhosted are really terrible. In this case, people go across town and rent an expensive apartment there by taking a unit off the market. It's just a terrible situation to have in family type neighborhoods. Really? I can't urge you enough not to do it.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Members of council. My name is Braden Phillips. I may addresses on file. I am currently serving as the President of the Peninsula Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. Our neighborhood, like many others, rarely achieves unanimous consensus on any issue. That's also the case in short term rentals. Last year, we surveyed our residents and asked whether they favored short term rentals on the peninsula. Nearly two thirds opposed the regions. They opposed as the we are a densely packed community with as little as six feet between houses. We leave our windows open and noise from rooftop decks carries and creates an adverse quality of life. We are also a parking impacted neighborhood and when SDR renters come in and bring two or three cars with them, it simply exacerbates a problem that we live with every day. It's doubled in the summer. I think allowing the neighborhood to exercise the opt out provision and restrict operations to those that are hosted is very important. Hosts are generally thank you, sir. They're familiar with the neighborhood norms and they've got skin in the game. There's a vested interest for hosts to maintain quality of life. Thank. My name is Gerald Anderson. I just want to thank the city and the council and and Councilwoman Price in particular, for for making sure this petition provision got into this. This ordinance, contrary to what other people have said, the petition is not going to be splitting the neighborhood. It's the unhosted stars that really, really cause the tension between neighbors. And and we've had plenty of experience with that in in Naples. So again, I just want to thank the council for for having this this petition provision in here and urge you to keep it there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. My name's Dave Hough. I'm a resident of the third District, and I came here to support the opt out petition part of this. Yes. TR After listening to a lot of people, at a bare minimum, it should stay how it is. I agree with several people that it should be a 50 plus one. As far as the petition goes. And what I would really like to see and it would address the whole issue of corporations is not allowing on hosted stars in the city of Long Beach. Thank you.
Speaker 6: 1/2 before you start. Claire, can you hold up the next five?
Speaker 1: Giovani Barron. Jordan Wynn. Fred Sutton. Michael O'Toole. Alex Contreras. Giovani Barron, Jordan Wynn, Fred Sutton, Michael O'Toole, Alex Contreras, thank you.
Speaker 6: You may proceed, sir.
Speaker 2: My name is Hanks Nipper. I'm a longtime member of home owner Spinner. And in the 25 years that I've been there, we've always, from the very beginning, have had a rule to prohibit short term rentals. And if you know the community at all, you'll know that our homes in many cases are three, four or five feet apart , number one. Many of our homes are on our own, right on the verge of boat docks, which are our favorite party places for younger people. And there have been a number of nights that we were up until one, 2:00 in the morning because of all the noise up there. It's of great concern to us. Property values is really the main reason for having a homeowners association. And we ask that whatever you do, please give homeowner's association your authority to prohibit short term rentals. Thank you. Honorable counsel. My name is Fred Sutton. I'm here on behalf of the California Apartment Association. Housing providers face a variety of issues as it relates to illegal subletting, and we have serious concerns as it relates to the preventative measures in the ordinance, specifically the prohibition list and the consent form. Los Angeles just started enforcing their ordinance late last year, which have those same provisions. But we're finding owners that have put their properties on the prohibition list or are being cited by the city for a possible fine. We're also finding that the consent form is not being collected by the city and reviewed to determine whether someone is actually getting consent. So in both of those cases, you have housing providers saying cigars are not allowed here on this property and not giving consent. The enforcement mechanism here is operators and property owners shall be held jointly accountable. Housing providers should not be held accountable for illegal activity. They're trying to prevent in the in the building, the platform or the host should be held accountable and the consent form should be changed over to expressed consent. Thank you. Hello. My name is Giovanni Perrone. Thank you for your time. I am a host on Airbnb. I am a homeowner in Long Beach. I've lived here nine years and I'm very grateful to having the opportunity to host my home. And obviously it has actually taken the place of my job. About five years ago I lost my job, so I now use this as my main source of income. So I do appreciate everything that I've gained from it. I definitely have hosted people.
Speaker 9: At my house where.
Speaker 2: There are families that come in. I've hosted local residents at my house where they have property emergencies at their house. I have so many different experiences with that that I can go on and on. But I obviously support the ordinance as it stands and I do appreciate your time and possibly I like that 1% that you guys have in there. Maybe flip that around if you really need housing, maybe you ask the hotels for 1% of their rooms for people that need.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Michael O'Toole, the third district. I'm actually the president of the homeowner's association in Naples, Ireland. And one thing that I've seen today mostly is we're all saying the same thing.
Speaker 2: Nobody is complaining about a hosted home. Everybody's complaining about a non hosted home. The opt out is really designed for a community, for a very tight knit community. That might be very unique, too.
Speaker 6: Can you address the council, sir? I'm sorry to have the opinion of their neighborhood. They know it best. Nobody knows it better. A lot of these signs that I see that say opt out. They don't know our neighborhood. They don't live in that neighborhood. We know it. We love it. We can protect it. We're not kicking out or saying no non hosted. But the hosted is the problem. And so if we can just keep the neighborhoods with a choice, I think the neighborhoods will be happy and I think the whole entire city will be happy . Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: When I call the next guy.
Speaker 1: Can I have Jordan Wynn, Myra J. Garcia, Leah Hogan, Jeff Hoffman and Olga Allred?
Speaker 3: Good evening and thank you so much for taking the time. My name is Alex Contreras. I'm original organizing director with California MI. And while that normally means we're advocating for all kinds of things in our backyards, I'm here representing the Long Beach MI team who are very concerned that with the limited housing stock available, this current ordinance , as is, will further drive up the rate, will further restrict the amount of rentals for long term tenants. As everyone here, I believe, can acknowledge, we are in a housing crisis and what we need is more housing now, not more short term rentals. So our recommendations are to two total units, one primary and one non primary. A total cap on all last year until Long Beach. Build enough homes to house everyone who lives here and wants to live here. And like the city of L.A., adhere to a 120 day annual renter cap. If it's supposed to be a short term rental, then it should be a short term rental. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name's Leah Horgan. I'm a resident of District two, and I want to echo other advocates of stronger regulation tonight and.
Speaker 12: Really highlight that this.
Speaker 3: Is a struggle between.
Speaker 10: People who sort of want the most.
Speaker 3: Freedom to make the most money, the easiest way on multiple properties. That's what this regulation addresses. It's not about single home sharing. I think that's sort of a misleading turn. This is a struggle between profit maximization and those of us who are looking to keep rooves overheads month to month and ensure that there's.
Speaker 10: Housing for residents who keep the.
Speaker 3: City running. There are many, many ways to make profit from property safe. For instance, by renting long term and study after study demonstrates that short term rentals cost.
Speaker 10: Cities.
Speaker 3: As taxes and regulations are evaded and burdens renters and low income folks as housing costs or in a way that really only benefits statistically white well off property owners. I study this. I'm a PhD student and I have seen the effects globally, so I really want to urge you to consider acting on behalf of renters tonight. Thank you. One of them lie to me number that made other people. Then listen to those. Good evening. My name is my I and I live in District two on the rebels. I'm here from.
Speaker 1: Coalition for good.
Speaker 3: Good jobs, liberty and liberty. If the people cannot affect the mutual in early to the good thing only the short term rent. I am here because I have in short term rentals is affecting us greatly. They concluded that the animals will not receive 3%. There is the regulation. If you think that were having a crisis right now, wait till you pass this regulation. When I think that a 12% of discapacidad is living a normal internally minimum, this is going to affect all people.
Speaker 1: With disabilities who.
Speaker 3: Aren't able to make more than minimum wage. I lost personal majority of elderly people. Yet the person is relatively monolithic and the rest of the people who cannot live on minimum wage but apparently be prepared to see more homeless people on the streets. Emanuel was homeless and more six or more break ins in the city. You'll see in contrast to the proposition I am against this proposition or effect on mi familia because it affects my family in the in my unethical these capacity elderly people and people with disabilities. Thank you.
Speaker 0: National convention.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor. Members of the council. I'm Jeff Hoffman, lifelong resident of Long Beach. First of all, Councilwoman Pierce, I don't think you were crazy to bring this up three years ago. In fact, I think getting in front of it was smart is giving the city an opportunity to spend quality time looking at the issues , having the group meetings, which we now see a very quality proposal in front of you. But we also talk about Long Beach being a collection of unique neighborhoods. And the different neighborhoods have their own special qualities. And some neighborhoods lend themselves more to having the short term rentals versus others. So I am in favor of the opt out. I think that way individual communities within our city can decide if they want to have the short term rental.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: We have Brad Michaels, Sam Gribble and Shawn Black.
Speaker 3: Boy, please. Okay. My name is Olga Al Arad. I had a big speech, but I'm just going to make it really quick. I'm highly against the opt out. I think it pits neighbors against neighbors. And if we are going to implement a two strikes, you're out. Why would we need the opt out? Long Beach has collected $2 million from. We're not big businesses. We're just people trying to pay our mortgages, you know, trying to make ends meet. And so this, in essence, we've been paying the treaties. Why don't we use the treaties that Long Beach has already collected from us? Small little business people? We're not even business people. We're just homeowners. And why don't you guys build housing? You guys are collected already over $2 million since April from us. Little people that own our little homes use that money and also get it from the hotels to to build housing. Don't take it from us. We're just trying to make ends meet. Thank you. I yield my time. Oh, okay. Okay. Why don't you use the world?
Speaker 4: Good evening. Council Members Brad Michaels, Suzy Price, District three. Thank you very much. You all are very intelligent people. I'm a business owner, so I'm going to boil it down to reality check. Okay. A lot of unions here, a lot of people have a lot of different priorities.
Speaker 2: I'm a small person, okay. I'm trying to get a retirement, have a house here in Belmont Shores. My dream to move here mid-year, five years.
Speaker 4: We turned a drug house into a house that now people come from all over the world saying.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's a beautiful house. For 3 minutes from the beach. We poured over $200,000 to repair our house. So, I mean.
Speaker 4: We improve the neighborhood. I am against opt out. I don't want one or two people having a voice or I don't want the little group of Naples having a voice of all over it. Long Beach dictating their views over what we can do with our own property. I do believe in the in the Constitution that we have freedoms.
Speaker 2: To do with our property as we will in the housing crisis. No such thing. I can swing a dead cat and hit six units that are for rent right now within my within my block where I live.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: No minor town, but thank you very much.
Speaker 0: You. Could you please cause any more?
Speaker 1: Sam Gribble. Sean Pollock is the last speaker.
Speaker 2: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for having us here today. Thank you for the studies you've done, which has proven that stars is a great thing for the community. I am against the opt out. For some reasons I feel like if SDR is going to have an opt out, the art also long term rentals should have the same provision because I have a party house. Ten doors down. Our neighborhood cannot deal with them because we have no rights. So when you talk about party house, is the long term is it the long term rentals or is it the short term rentals? Because most of the people that come, we have several Airbnbs in our.
Speaker 9: Area, their family.
Speaker 2: Nice, nice with their kids, everything. Very, very few party houses are based on SDR because there is no proof the city can prove it. But we can show proof that the long term rentals have a lot of party houses going on with the police reports. So it'd be nice to compare apples to apples. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now I'm going to turn it back to the maker, Mr. Spears.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to thank everybody that showed up tonight and spoke. I want to thank everybody that has been participating in this process over the last several years. We know that we embarked on this to try to create a Long Beach model. And so I want to be honest and transparent with everyone. We've had lots of conversations, both with community members, with housing advocates, with Unite here, with Airbnb, with neighbors, and really trying to figure out how do we have that balance between protecting our housing, ensuring that we've got people that live in the city that can really use their home for short term rentals so that they can make additional income and also benefit off of the shared economy. I have a couple of questions that I'm going to ask staff, and then I've got some motions to make so that we can have a conversation behind the dais, again, reminding everyone in the room that the goal is really to protect housing but have a Long Beach model. And so one thing I do want to remind folks is a lot of the people that spoke tonight talked about what it meant for them to have their own unit. The Long Beach ordinance, as written right now, allows for unlimited nights for a primary resident. And that's something that a lot of cities don't have. And so I want to applaud the council for really seeing that that hosts that live in our communities are our neighbors. And we've got to know a lot of them. A lot of them are seniors or people that are maybe taking care of somebody in their home and that the city has done something that other cities haven't done. And so I wanted to keep that in the back of everyone's mind. Staff I'm going to ask some questions, if you could try to answer them kind of quickly just because it takes up my time too. Why were business licenses removed from the requirement? Killing me.
Speaker 9: This license removed from the requirement because of the small number of units that we are going to allow SDR operators to operate. Currently, people that do rentals, it starts at four units, so it would have to go back to the voters.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. That.
Speaker 12: And there was a residency requirement for additional units and that has been removed as well. Can you explain that?
Speaker 13: And I'll take that one. The reason we removed that is we didn't feel it would could withstand a legal challenge because they are property owners, whether they live in the city or not, so that they pay taxes like the property owners that do live in the city. So we felt that would be not fair.
Speaker 12: Okay. And the reason I ask that question, because when we had this item in front of us last time, we had said that we wanted you to be a property owner in the city of Long Beach to be able to have an additional unit that wasn't your primary. Now that that's not true, I think that that has an effect on where we end up as a council with the number of non primary. I don't know what that number is yet. But I just wanted to point that out for the council that that at least was where I was at last time. There seems to be some misunderstanding on requirement of what? Is it a requirement that everybody pay to yacht to the city or only those that are entered into an agreement with the city?
Speaker 13: Everybody is required to pay if the ordinance passes.
Speaker 12: Okay, great. And for those people that might not put their short term rental on a platform like Airbnb or Expedia, how do we expect that we'll collect that Totti?
Speaker 13: Well, typically through an enforcement process, it's generally fairly easy to find out who is renting properties on a short term basis. And when we found that out, if it wasn't on a platform, we'd track that down, go after the person to collect it. It'd be an enforcement process.
Speaker 12: Could the city, you know, if we can turn to an agreement with with platforms, could the city, say, encourage everybody that doesn't start in the city to listen on a certified platform?
Speaker 13: We'd have to do a little bit more research on that and see what other cities are doing. I think we probably could do something like that.
Speaker 12: Seems like it's for the platforms that are working with us and providing us with Totti and as was mentioned, one point something million already this year seems like it would save staff time. A lot of process. If we require those stars to be on any platform. I don't care which platform but one that we know we're collecting Totti from. So I look forward to maybe hearing some more about that down the road. Getting to the issue of, let's see, of the number in the caps. So one thing that I think was also missed from the last time when we had this discussion was my intention with making sure that we weren't putting additional short term rental units on the market. If our housing stock was not healthy. And what's known as a healthy housing stock is that we've got about 8% housing vacancy. Two years ago, I think the vacancy was a much lower number. The staff have an idea of what our housing vacancy number is now.
Speaker 7: It's roughly six and a half percent, 6.7%.
Speaker 12: 7%. And the reason why that that's important is because we know when the housing market gets crunched that rents can go up. And we have what happened in 2017, which was a big turnover.
Speaker 0: Excuse me, that. Yes, you can cue back up if you like to.
Speaker 3: Look at 17 seconds.
Speaker 2: Where.
Speaker 5: Now the second year of the motion. Can I yield 2 minutes, please?
Speaker 0: Well, I'm just looking at those two rows. I see.
Speaker 12: So the screen up there and the screen over here is different. So this one still says, I've got 30 seconds.
Speaker 0: Okay, you got 30 seconds, got 30 seconds.
Speaker 12: 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
Speaker 5: You don't have to use the whole 2 minutes. I can use that, but.
Speaker 3: Oh, my gosh.
Speaker 0: That's why.
Speaker 12: Okay. So I wanted to have a little bit of that context. I will have some other things to mention. I'm not sure if I can read all my changes and in 2 minutes all my motions, but I will begin. Was I done? I'm like, I guess the one other part I wanted to mention was not only our housing vacancy, but the where our hotels are at. And so I appreciate that the hotels who love me so much are here advocating for something tonight. But from my conversations with the CVB, this morning is on any weekend that we have something big like the Grand Prix, we're at 100% capacity. And so I wanted to ask if down the road not tonight, but if down the road there could be some conversations around increasing whatever number we come up with tonight for a very , very, very special event so that we're not losing out on top, but an opportunity that might arise. And I don't know what that is yet, but I, I wanted to ask Steph if that was an option for you to explore. Down the road.
Speaker 3: We can certainly investigate that. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 12: I have 2 minutes. With all of that said, very quickly.
Speaker 3: I have some extra minutes.
Speaker 12: Okay, I'll stop them. I'm going to let Suzy talk, and we'll go from there.
Speaker 5: I'm going to I'm going to keep it simple because I know everyone on the council probably wants to add something to this. First of all, thanks for everyone. Thanks to everyone who came out. It is indeed a very unique collaboration effort, and I'm pleased to see it because we honestly don't see that enough. The biggest concern for me is that short term rentals have been the Wild West in the city for a long time, and they're illegal and it's impossible to enforce them because the residents have to be the the evidence gatherers that's putting neighbors against each other. Right. They're out there taking photos of violations and things and it's very difficult to enforce it. So for me, whatever provisions we come up with tonight and I'm going to queue up again. We need to have a strong enforcement mechanism because if we don't have a strong enforcement mechanism, it doesn't matter what rules we come up with here. We can come up with rules all day long, but if we're not enforcing them, then, then that's a problem. The number one concern that I've heard from my residents is your vacation rental unhosted non primary residence that's being rented out all year long and there's no vested interest by the property owner to care for the use and enjoyment of the property of their neighbors. And so to me, that's what we want to limit, and that's where the opt out for me makes sense. What I'd like to do is right now the proposed opt out in the provision is two.
Speaker 3: Thirds.
Speaker 5: Of voters in the census tract. I'd like to reduce that to 50% plus one. However, however, I would like to ensure.
Speaker 3: That the people who are.
Speaker 5: Circulating the petitions are property owners. Because what I don't want is petition gatherers to be paid to infiltrate neighborhoods, to get them to get the number of signatures they need for the petitions, because I don't think that's going to help your use and enjoyment of your neighborhood either. So if it's and I want the city clerk to be involved in determining who the signature gatherers are, who's petitioning to ensure that their property owners in that census track. So that's very, very important to me. That's that's my number one concern in regards to what my residents have reached out to me. I'm in favor right now as the ordinance is currently written. It allows for somewhere around 1700 of these vacation rentals in the city of Long Beach. I think that number is absurd. I'd like to limit that number. I want to hear from my colleagues on what they think that number should be. But I think 1700 at this time is absurd. So I'd like to hear from my colleagues on what they think about that. The other thing that I want to talk about is on the prohibition option. So multifamily units, buildings where the property owner gets on the prohibition list, they don't want their tenants to sublet and serve as a short term rental, while the property owner should not be fined if the platform is posting that location as an as a site to be rented when they're on the city's prohibition list. So I really want to work on what we can do about that if the property owner is doing everything they can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. You can queue up again. So Mango.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I want to appreciate everyone who came down tonight. I know not all of you have come to a city council meeting before, so you should know that we've imposed rules upon ourselves to limit ourselves to 5 minutes and then recue for the same reason that we want to hear all of you, which is why we reduced down to one minute so everyone could stay in here, everyone's opinions and the final vote. I think it is absolutely absurd to use a census track as the determining factor. I spoke against this at the last meeting. Some census tracts have a couple hundred people in it. Other census tracts have 3800 homes. And it would be absolutely impossible for a community that is made up of I'm sorry, a census track that is made up of multiple neighborhoods that have completely different vibes and feels to be the determinant of your ability to have a piece of housing which is across a major street away. I mean, literally, some of these housing tracts go across Studebaker. It's ridiculous. So I pulled an example. My neighbor who lives on Val Verde just moved to Naples. And so I pulled up an example. So. Naples is housing track 5775.01. It is consistent of 1788 homes in that housing track. Of that 1788 homes, the voter district that overlays which remember there can be 1 to 3 voters in a household. Makes up two housing tracts. I'm sorry, two census tracts. And there are only 1200 registered voters. I mean, so your barrier to actually banning a as a bad landlord is very difficult. So I would like to have a discussion around is it the 300 homes closest to the short term rental or something like that? We kind of talked about it at the last meeting. I drew pictures for development services about my opinion and why, and I asked questions in advance to get this housing census tract. But I don't know that anyone here would think it's reasonable to gather signatures from. 1000. It's almost 2000 households to ban a house. And on top of that, I don't know about you, but when I was running for office, there may be two yard signs, two people running for mayor in the same household. And if you only get one vote per household and your vote is split, how does that even work? I just don't think the process is well thought out. And so for that reason, I'm I petition slide eight. Also, we've requested numerous times that all the slides are numbered so people can follow along and, and follow up. So if we could just make sure that that happens. So slide eight. I just I can't agree to census tracts. It seems unreasonable. And Cantrell, you said give it to the third district. Don't give it to me. Your census tract has 864 homes in it. There's no way, you know, half of those people or that they would know if your neighbor was a bad landlord. I have concerns about tenants forging paperwork to use their rental property as an Airbnb. So if I'm a landlord and I have a tenant and that tenant wants to use it as an Airbnb, I would love to have some kind of mechanism where a landlord can just mail in somewhere and say, I don't want any of my units ever to be available as an Airbnb so that if their tenant wants to violate the rules, there's some kind of barrier to forging documentation and so on, because that has happened extensively from what I hear. I love the idea of a incentive for weekends that are Grand Prix or certain conferences that sell out the whole city. Heck, my husband and I might leave and go stay in Carson for a week when the Olympics is here and rent out our house for some exorbitant amount of money and pay our mortgage for a couple of weeks so that our kid can be in swim lessons or whatever she wants to be. And so something like that I think is amazing idea. The last thing I want to say is we talk about limiting the number to 1700. Without a legitimate process in place. There are 1300 in the city. So if we wanted to limit the number by housing track, I could see something like that where you're not overpopulated in any particular community, but I would prefer it be my neighborhood and not my housing track because I don't believe people across the major street have the same feel and lifestyle as others. Thank you. And I yield my 47 seconds.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Index.
Speaker 3: Thank you, colleagues. This is a very, very important subject. And yes, thank.
Speaker 1: You to everyone who.
Speaker 3: Has come out here in support. And and, you know, just being here makes a big difference. It's a very difficult decision for us upon the dias to make a decision this big just by ourselves. So please know that your participation tonight and reaching out to all of our offices is very important because we really want to do you justice. With that being said, I, I just feel that, you know, the 1% is outrageous. It's too to way too much.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 3: Enforce something like this. I think that, you know, being from a district where affordable housing is.
Speaker 5: Impacted in a big way, I think that, you.
Speaker 3: Know, one thing that I would like to do is actually make an amendment to the motion. I want to make sure that that we don't overdo it and be and that. Sorry about that. And I want to make my amendment so that we. I'm going to say this slowly so that the total number of non primary residence for short term rentals. Ah that our issued ah, 500 or less. I'm sorry. 500 at a camp. An hour issued by the city.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That was a.
Speaker 13: Woman.
Speaker 0: Okay, fine. Mm.
Speaker 13: But as of this point, I think Councilman Councilwoman Pierce indicated she was going to make a motion when she queues up again. So as of right now, unless somebody has adopted the motion, the recommended action, we really don't have a motion on the floor to amend. So. It could be a friendly amendment to somebody else's motion. Or if you wanted to make a standalone motion, that would be perfectly fine too. But as of now, we don't really have a motion.
Speaker 3: I'll make it friendly so that we can discuss that.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Is that it, Mrs. Devine?
Speaker 3: You know my time.
Speaker 0: I see. Ranga.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's. It gives me. It gives me 7 minutes.
Speaker 0: Seven.
Speaker 2: I'm all kidding. I'm not going to take that long, actually, because I see that the cast members, Pearson Price, have recused. And I know they have a lot of things to say or continue to say. I want to go ahead and keep it short. The only the only thing with me about about this whole issue is the fact that, you know, we are a coastal city and we have a lot of Airbnb housing that takes place along the coast. And one of the issues that I see up and down when I as a member of the Coastal Commission, is this battle going on with the cities that the want to have Airbnb or want to get their total tragic occupancy tax. And I don't want to use a short term whether or not you understand what I mean. But the thing is, is that. It's all about access and access to the beach. And our access to the beach here is it's an area in district three, district two. And maybe a sliver of this one. So those are those are the ones that I'm concerned about in terms of what ever plan we come up with that that we keep in mind that there are going to be people who want access to those homes because they've never seen the beach before or they want to experience Long Beach. So my question in this sense is, is there or has there been a study or maybe it's coming where we know what those rates are? Is it a bifurcated rate where we have one in four coastal zones and one's more inland outside of the coastal zone in Long Beach? Do you answer that?
Speaker 13: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you're referring to a rate. You mean a rental rate.
Speaker 2: Retail rate, like how much Airbnb homes go for or a. A rental along the coast is old versus both versus inland.
Speaker 3: I don't think we have data on the actual rental costs that are bifurcated by the coastal as opposed to the location. We do have some data.
Speaker 5: But not broken out in that manner.
Speaker 2: My concern would be that making sure that. If we are going to have a plan here in terms of how many we're going to have, whether it's a thousand or 500 or 1% or have a percentage point, I want to make sure that whatever we come up with that. At least half of that or a good number of that. That along the coast, along the coastal zone excuse me, along the coastal zone are affordable. Because that's one of the major reasons why cities up and down the coast are are are struggling with this because there's there's that there are there are neighborhoods or areas. For example, the Del Mar. Del Mar is a very expensive place to be. And there's nothing there. They would be affordable alone. They are more. Yet you can come to Long Beach. I have an experience and it would be a lot more if not experience have an opportunity to. Yeah. That's tr that would be provide a good experience for families that there have been there before. So I will just throw that out there because I think, you know, for you, especially in the District three, that's going to be that's that's a that's a big concern. And I know it is for for me in the sense that, you know, if I if a family of four wants to come to the beach in Long Beach and they see that there's an extra available pretty close to the beach or on the beach itself that they want I would want them to have that good experience and want to make sure it's affordable. So all that to say is that I want to make sure that where I would come up with, whether it's my poor kid or not and I don't know whether we need to barricade it at that. We provide continued access to a to the beach. And I yield my 50 seconds.
Speaker 0: Okay. And this is worse.
Speaker 13: Councilman Turanga.
Speaker 12: Count towards my time, by the way.
Speaker 13: I guess my only response is I haven't seen any ordinance up and down the state that actually attempts to regulate the affordability of units that are put on the market. What I have seen, and you would know better than I from your experience on the Coastal Commission, is that the Coastal Commission will not approve a short term rental ordinance if there is some outright prohibition against allowing them in the coastal zone. And the Coastal Commission, as you pointed out, in wants to encourage that kind of use. But what the Coastal Commission has been approving are restrictions that restrict it to hosted only and it seems like the Coastal Commission has been okay with that. But I haven't seen an affordability component in the ordinances.
Speaker 2: That's correct. In terms of hosted. But in there that element of affordability as well.
Speaker 0: That's one, right? Yes.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Thank you for answering my my questions earlier. And thank you to the conversation so far. And I would like to make a motion now and hear from my colleagues on where they're at with it. There are some. Quick little things and then I'm going to actually read the ordinances as we went over earlier today. Mr. Mayes. I want to make sure that it's clear that the total is a requirement and not an option. I'd like to create a certification for platforms that pay TOT and work with the city on enforcement. So that we can list that and have host work with those platforms. I would like staff, whatever number we come up with today. And those in the audience know that these last four days have been probably the hardest four days of my term on council. It's been very tough. I would like us to get to a place where we have a cap today.
Speaker 3: And that.
Speaker 12: In in light of how this item came forward, that staff monitor the housing vacancy rate and when the housing vacancy rate reaches 9%, that staff agenda is an item in front of this council to discuss if we make a change to the cap. This way. The item that's been in front of us for the last two years where we've been talking about a percent, can come back for a full discussion. But for me, when the 1% came up, I didn't register that 1% with 1700 units. And that's something that I cannot in any way as a housing advocate support. And so I'm trying to find us a place where we can get a cap today. 500 is on the floor right now. See where we get. But that staff be the one to actually agenda, is it not a two from four. And that if that were to be supported by this council, that it'd be the same time every year that we revisit that housing vacancy. If it's every January or every march, that there's a process in place to have that discussion. Now I'm going to get into the more specifics here. On Section 5.77, it should read. The SDR operator shall not operate more than one primary residence ACR in more than one non primary residence stars in the city. Section 577030 before. This is the total number of primary residents. Hold on to yes, this is the total number of non primary residents. I'd still like to hear from my colleagues on where they're comfortable. Item or. It's 577050. Unhosted stays in a str shall be limited to 90 days per year. All stays in a non primary residence shall be presumed to be unhosted. I know we've had lots of debate over definitions, and I wanted to make that clear. This is a significant change that I want to hear from my colleagues as well. Hosting platforms. This is 5770708. Hosting platforms shall not process or complete any booking transactions for stars unless the ACR has a valid current ACR registration number issued by the city to the operator. We would also like to list the date that that permit is valid on the host platform. I'd like to. I think that these things are the following that I'm going to talk about are are assumed in the ordinance but not teased out. Hosting platform shall not process or complete any booking transactions that would exceed the number of days in section 577050. We talked about that today. I am comfortable with Councilmember Price's comments around allowing the clerk and the process of 50% plus one support that. I'm not sure if we don't have a census track how we are able to get there. I think based on all my conversations with city staff, it has to be a census track. And honestly, like if you get four neighbors at 4000 homes, they can they can figure out a way to get it if it's something that is is a priority for them. So I support your comments on that one. Enforcement. So we know that in a lot of cities we have a discussion about we finally have regulated, but enforcement is lacking and we're really struggling. So I want to make sure that there's no gray area here.
Speaker 0: Yes, you'll have to queue up again.
Speaker 12: Okay. I'm sure my council colleagues would like me to continue and I can stop talking for the rest of the time.
Speaker 0: I think you have to queue up again.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Councilman Price.
Speaker 5: So I wanted to clarify one thing about the opt out provision, and that is the opt out provision should only apply to non primary unhosted. So the vacation rentals. So if there are residents who are home sharing, if it's your primary residence, the opt out is not to pet you against your next door neighbor. The opt out is to prevent location rentals coming to the neighborhood. If the neighborhood wants to petition for that. The opt out provision is supposed to be the intent behind it is to allow neighborhoods and neighbors to have a voice in this process. And so reducing the threshold of how many signatures they need to get makes it a meaningful voice because the two thirds number in a census track is nearly impossible to achieve, whereas the 50 plus one is a much more realistic number. And if we have safeguards in place to ensure that it's property owners, it's those who have property values at stake and long term vested interests in the property. That will be the ones that will be able to circulate petitions and get those signatures. So I think that.
Speaker 3: That addresses that.
Speaker 13: Excuse me, Susie, can I stop for just 1/2? Can I address the vice mayor? Vice Mayor, I know we have the time limits in place and we have them in place for a good reason. But I don't think we ever contemplated that we would stop someone from Make in the middle of a motion. And the reason I say that it's going to be impossible for the city clerk to follow it. I'm having a hard time following it. So I feel like we should let the maker of the motion finish her motion, even if it goes over the time limit. And then we can impose the time limit on further discussion so that we have one cohesive motion that people can understand.
Speaker 0: You're the city attorney, so I think that's a good idea. Thank you. Okay, good.
Speaker 13: Appreciate that.
Speaker 5: So, Mr. Mays, should I yield my time to Councilmember Pearce?
Speaker 13: Yeah. I don't know if it's so much yielding time. I think we should just let Councilwoman Pierce finish your motion without regard to time constraint within reason, and then just impose it as we go through the discussion.
Speaker 5: Did you make a note of my comments, though?
Speaker 13: I yeah, I think so.
Speaker 3: Okay. Listen, part of the motion.
Speaker 0: Plus you have 2 minutes and 46 seconds left.
Speaker 12: Well, I have until I finished my motion.
Speaker 0: And Mrs. Price.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 12: I was talking about enforcement. 577090. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in chapter 1.3 to the fines shall be 1000 for each violation. Each separate day in which a violation exists shall be considered a separate violation. Section 577.090. If three fines have been issued against a host, so I'd like to remove the word STR and replace it with a host within a 12 month period. Blah, blah, blah. The rest of that piece. 577090 should read any person. Or host. Hosting platform or SDR operator convicted of violating any provision of that of the. The city may issue and serve administrative subpoenas again to any person, any host hosting platform or SFR operator as necessary to obtain a specific information. The same thing for section 577090j. Any person, any host hosting platform or ACR operator. I know this is assumed, but I want to make sure it's clear. It's unlawful to be a host unless the responsibilities of 577.070 are not fully complied with. I know it's implied, but want to make sure it's clear noncompliance with any stated responsibility under section 577.07 will result in a violation fee of $1,000 per day. Per violation. Ladies and gentlemen, that is my motion. I do support the low. The lower number. I look forward to hearing from my council colleagues again, reminding us that we have unlimited amounts on hosted stays. But understanding, you know, this has been a long conversation. So I'll come back up in a little bit.
Speaker 0: And who else do we need a second of that?
Speaker 5: I'm seconded.
Speaker 0: Okay, fine. This is Bryce.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I did it. Okay, so in addition to the opt out lowering the threshold that I already articulated, I'm hoping my colleague is amenable to that change. I would also like to request that under section 5.77.070 hosting platform responsibilities.
Speaker 3: I believe that it should be a.
Speaker 5: Responsibility of the platform to remove any multifamily property owners who have requested to be on the prohibition list. And I believe if the property owner has exercised due diligence to place themselves on that list, they should not be fined and the platform should get a warning that it is not in compliance with the city's regulations. So I'd like to add that as as a friendly as well. In addition, in terms of the number right now, the ordinance as proposed allows for 1700, roughly 1700 non primary short term rentals. And I know Councilwoman Zendejas suggested that maybe that limit be 500 as opposed to the percentage that's proposed. I take to heart the comments by Councilmember Ranga because I do represent the coast and I know how important it is to have access to the coast and how important that is for the Coastal Commission. In fact, every project in my district we talk about access to the coast and allowing for access to the coast. So my to to be meaningfully compliant with that, my recommendation would be that we, we, we kind of find a happy medium and allow for a thousand, no more than a thousand as opposed to the 1700 or so that would currently be allowed no more than a thousand non primary stars. So that we're meeting in the middle in terms of Coastal Commission's interests and access, because this is going to have to be a process that we're going to have to be compliant on many levels with in terms of access to the coast. So but I'd love to hear from my colleagues on that.
Speaker 13: Before we go any further, I want to. You did not make a substitute motion. You were making, I think, a friendly amendment to Councilwoman Pearson's motion in Councilwoman. Councilwoman Pierce, do you accept those three changes as a friendly amendment?
Speaker 12: I accept them. I'd like to hear from my colleagues on the number, though. So I'm not accepting a thousand yet.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: So I'm price. Is that it?
Speaker 5: That's it for me. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I'm going to an.
Speaker 6: Thank you. First, I want to acknowledge our staff and everybody that has been involved in getting us to this point over the last few years. It's been a long, painstaking policymaking process, which I think we should respect when we are making policy. We should take our time and get it right. So I want to, you know, shout out to the stakeholders who everybody who was involved in this, the hotels, the unions, the host. And we heard from community tonight. There's very few nights that we actually hear from all of the stakeholders in in a process. I'm seeking to get to a balanced and thoughtful policy. And as we get there, I mean, I think I can support much of what has been proposed. But I am really interested before we start talking about the number and putting caps on a number. I want to hear from staff in terms of what it's going to cost to administer the program, because I don't want to be upside down there either.
Speaker 7: Yes. So those are really good questions. I would like to throw out some data to help the council kind of with this this hard policy decision of whether it's 500 or 1000 or somewhere in between. We looked at data from 2010 and 2015 about how many units have just been historically used for seasonal and recreational use, where people are leaving them vacant because they're snowbirds or they're traveling or others. That number has been consistently about 1000, so that is what is currently not being really put on the housing stock. It's been about a thousand. We also heard through for hundreds of people throughout this process who owned cars who have come to our community meeting . So I'm going to guess that number is probably been in the 3 to 4 to almost 500 of actual people who have engaged in this process. And the enforcement is a tough one because right now I think Councilmember Price mentioned it is illegal and we have hundreds and hundreds of these. So we know we have around 800 to 900 on hosted. And the point of the ordinance is to try to get a regulatory system that the city can actually enforce. So the lower that number gets, the harder it is for us to enforce because there's going to be more in the black market. So a number like 500 is going to be harder for us to get compliance if there's already eight or 900 that are out there. So I can I'll have Linda talk about the enforcement that we have, but I did want to throw that out. That number is probably, in staff's opinion, somewhere in between the 508,000 and in there getting closer to what we have so that we can have meaningful enforcement.
Speaker 6: So I heard in public. Oh, was there. No. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Please. In terms of enforcement, I think that in the initial proposal for this ordinance and in the last budget, the city council did approve two budgeted positions specifically for enforcement. So we would have staff on board to essentially enforce.
Speaker 5: Design and enforce the ordinance, as we've.
Speaker 3: Discussed it tonight.
Speaker 6: So if we were to to cap and it sounds like it sounds like we're going to be okay but if we would have put a cap that would miss price or councilmember prices her friendly amendment and a thousand would that get us. Will we be able to to administer this program with the resources that that it would generate?
Speaker 3: Yes. And I presume you're speaking from a cost perspective, because the registration fees essentially are what we use to fund those staff positions.
Speaker 7: And we would enforce the 500 or 1000. I think the amount of compliance that you would get would be higher than at the higher number. So with a for the same amount of staff, we would have to go to more houses and do more compliance. If the number was lower to 500, the higher up that number goes, we would have more compliance or you would add more staff, which, you know, right now we're not budgeted for.
Speaker 6: So that I'm clear tonight, our action tonight does regulate stars no matter what direction we take. And if we weren't to take an action tonight, we would just have this ongoing proliferation of seizures in our city with unregulated and unaccountable. Right. Got it. So. That's it. I'm I'm in support of what's on the floor. I think a thousand is a reasonable number because I think we need to enforce and account for what is already there. Right. And there was a number that was also thrown out in quotes, I mean, from public comment that I want to just follow up on in terms of what is actually generated in stories for the city of Long Beach or what has been, because I'm understanding that there's already been some revenue generated.
Speaker 9: Yes. So there's been approximately since we started collecting it in past in April, approximately 1.8, $4 million in total generated. That's being split 50% between the general fund and between the SRP.
Speaker 6: S&P and why the S&P?
Speaker 9: Did I say that wrong?
Speaker 2: So the way.
Speaker 7: The Todd ordinance works at the voters it or that is on the books is that half of our total goes into special advertising and promotions, half goes into the general fund. So that's not something we can change in this ordinance.
Speaker 6: So in light of and I am sensitive to the to the comments about taking away existing housing and and obviously our need to build more housing. Is there any flexibility in the TLT to be able to set aside or dedicate moneys toward housing or affordable housing?
Speaker 7: So that's a policy choice of the council. There is some ability to do that, I would believe, as the revenue source grows. We would encourage you to look at that along with all of your other needs. If you remember about two years ago when we were facing some service cuts, the council wanted us to look at revenue . And so we put I'm going to estimate the number. I think it was about 750,000 in the general fund as our estimate, and we're right on that number, are actually a little bit higher as more dollars come in. You know, that really should be something. You look at the budget, should it go to housing, should it go to preserve services? You should go for enhanced services. But that would be a policy decision.
Speaker 6: Well, we're making policy tonight, so I'm okay with making a decision in that regard. I am concerned also just questioning. So since April, we've collected $1.8 million. Right. And that's less than a year. On how many hosts or stars were were. Actually contributing.
Speaker 9: So right now the top collection is limited to those hosted through Airbnb. We have a voluntary collection agreement with them. I don't have an exact number on the number of hosts that are paying the total. I'd have to work with business license staff to try and get that number, and we'd possibly have to go to Airbnb as well.
Speaker 6: So that's just Airbnb. There are other platforms that are still operating in the city that.
Speaker 9: Yes, we are actually in the process of working with HomeAway to enter into a voluntary collection agreement as well. They're the they're the two biggest right now in the city.
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, I'm going to again, I think 1000 is a is a reasonable number. But I'd also like to hear from my colleagues as well in terms of how, you know, you'd like to proceed with with the TLT, if that's I don't know that it should be dedicated just as happy. And I think in light of what we've heard, there's a lot of sensitivities around housing stock, our ability to to generate an income to to to to develop more affordable housing. I think this is a source that we need to look at as a as an option as well.
Speaker 13: Excuse me. Excuse me, Councilman Austin, I just want to clarify one thing Tom said. The way we read the current tax structure is the only money that would be in play for dedicating to a housing purpose would be the 6% that's not dedicated in the ordinance to the SRP. If we took money that's already dedicated tax that was passed before Prop 218 and tried to re reconvert that to a different area, we have a problem.
Speaker 6: I'd like to make a friendly amendment to use that 6%. Yeah.
Speaker 13: Remember we can use it. Always use that we already have the ability to do anything with as far as a general fund expense.
Speaker 7: And just add on to that. One of the reasons we do encourage you strongly to look at that as part of the budget discussion is that's currently supporting general fund services, the money that we have. So we wouldn't want to create a whole tonight. If you could give us a direction tonight or put it somewhere, we would need to come back then with reductions somewhere else in the budget. So we expect this funding source to grow over time, especially as we bring on HomeAway and other platforms. And so that that be we strongly encourage you to look at that as part of the budget.
Speaker 6: Looking at my budget oversight committee chair, she's mouthing all kinds of things to me right now. But I do recall that the SAP fund has a very significant reserve and it's a healthy fund. I think we could it would be the moral thing to do for the council to look at appropriating more money for housing. So I'm.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Huh?
Speaker 10: Huh?
Speaker 0: Did you know? Fine. Thank you, Councilman Ellison. You know, I think listen to all these. I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight, because this is the kind of conversation we should have all over the city, because the fact that the crisis that we're in and the city we were talking about, you know, I don't think anyone should be denied when especially when your homeowners tell you how you should or should not, when you're asked what you should do with it or being able to rent it out, you know, form it out, that's your house. But as far as homeless and the housing that we have, you are sitting watching that we in any extra money that we get. I'm just hoping all of you feel the same way that all of us feel is that we must put it back into that situation. So while I know that most of these short term rentals are in other districts, as a district with high, I am a district with high rental population and I'm a firm believer that we need to find a balance that allows the market to compete. But also, I did not want to displace our residents. You know, in my district we are building housing at a rapid rate. And I want to ensure that this city is also increasing the housing stock, not just even in and out to open up for the market too much. So we also need to preserve the character of our neighborhood. We need an oversight to ensure that we're not allowing party houses to become a nuisance. But lastly, I also need to ensure that our hospitality industry is not diminishing with these short term rentals. What I'm hearing tonight, everyone is for what you should be for, because the fact that you are homeowners, you work your life out to get what you are today. And for our individuals for affordable housing, we're going to have to look at that and we look at it very hard and we know we have a problem and we're going to have to be able to work with that problem to make sure that we in the city of Long Beach are not one of those who said we forgot about affordable housing because we are very, very serious about that. And you home and I want to thank every and every one of you who are very considerate and compassion. But we're trying to do for the city of Long Beach. So beautiful city. I love it most of my life. Probably all my life. But what I've seen, I love it and I hope we continue to do the right thing by residents, especially by affordable housing. And thank you guys very much. I'm going to give this to Mrs. Mongo and that feeling any time. Because that. Yield your time to her. Councilman. Councilwoman in Diaz. Amelia, my time to you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I don't need too much time. I just have a couple questions. Thank you, Councilmember Austin, for that recommendation of maybe having that 6% go to affordable housing. As a affordable housing advocate, I think that would be great. I wanted to know, is that something that realistically can be implemented?
Speaker 13: And then just procedurally that issue we can't decide tonight hasn't been agenda ized at all. That is usually something you would typically do as part of the budget process. It could be expedited. It could go to the Budget Oversight Committee for a recommendation. And I maybe didn't make myself clear before, but what I was trying to say is there's a total basically of 12%. Six of it currently must go to the special advertising and promotion fund. So the only other revenue is the other 6% that is currently earmarked for anything that the council wants to put it to towards the general fund. So it's that 6% we're talking about, we need to agenda. Is that for another evening for discussion of how that goes. But that money could. Or a percentage of that 6% certainly could go into some form of affordable housing if the council wanted to make that policy decision.
Speaker 7: And what I'd suggest as staff is what you're asking us to come back with some information. I'd like to come back with you about what's already in the budget, what is the projection, how much is going into general fund versus SRP? And then that will help you and look at our budget context that will help you make some decisions when we get to that point for budgeting.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And I would like to I am very interested to see on how that would look. So if you guys can please do that, that would be great. Another question and just procedurally.
Speaker 7: If you could make that as a friendly that, I'll make sure that it gets into the motion.
Speaker 3: Yes, I would like to make that as a friendly. Thank you. And also, you know, with considering that, I still think that something.
Speaker 10: Is.
Speaker 3: Way too much. Obviously, I would prefer because being an affordable housing advocate and in the first district again where we have a big like it's been said over and over again in the in the first district especially, we have a big affordable crisis, affordable housing crisis. So I would I don't support the 1000. I think that, you know, I could I could see why maybe 500 would be too too much of a drastic move for us right now, even though that's where I want it. But I don't know that I can have the support for that. So I moved that. At least we do. Maybe now let's not do any more than seven 750. As a family. Mm hmm.
Speaker 13: Hmm. Okay, before we go any further, Councilwoman Pierce, are you acceptable of those two friendly amendments? One has to do with bringing back information on the budgeting process for the TOT tax. And the other is to reduce your thousand cap to a 500. A sorry to a 77. 750 would be the friendly. Okay, so that's what we're sitting at. 750.
Speaker 0: That is an admission they are.
Speaker 2: Yes. I mean.
Speaker 13: That's 750. Just to be clear, we're talking about 750 UNHOSTED unit agents.
Speaker 3: Limit the mix.
Speaker 13: Of non primary residents. Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, procedurally, but that also had to be seconded by the second. There are the motion would. So it's you know.
Speaker 12: We're rolling with friendlies today. I know we don't always.
Speaker 2: But procedure, that's all we need.
Speaker 13: We need to know that the second of the motion is fine with it as well.
Speaker 9: Oh.
Speaker 13: I mean, if.
Speaker 5: Or from my other colleagues on that, because I think that this five minute limitation, everything is kind of piecemeal right now. So I'd love to hear from everybody before we land on a number.
Speaker 13: Okay.
Speaker 0: Sorry, Mrs. Diaz. Yes. Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 10: Mongo. So let me help with Mr. Mays. Mr. Austin. Councilman Austin and Councilwoman Zendejas item. As chair of Budget Oversight, what I'd like to see, and I think would be helpful in the discussion related to affordable housing. When Councilmember Austin talked about the ACP funds and the surplus that we have that that was a voter, it would have to go to the voters. But we just had a discussion about housing. So what I'd like to do is, as a friendly agenda is at the February 11th EOC meeting, a discussion about. Affordable housing. Receiving a percentage of the revenue from short term rentals. Would you be open to that as a friendly? And then I can make sure that report comes back that has all the details related to what the process would be, how much it would be separating it out by hotels versus if you want to do SDR only, or if you want to do the full taxation amount, what those numbers would be, we have those from a previous BOC meeting.
Speaker 12: You're talking about total funds for fairly.
Speaker 10: Affordable housing.
Speaker 3: Housing.
Speaker 12: Yeah. I mean, I think that the I agree with staff that it needs to be done in the budget process. So I don't think it's something we can skip ahead to. I mean, especially after. Me reallocating funds last time, how upset some people were. So, I mean, I think it makes sense for that to come back through the budget process, whatever time you want to take on the B or C to explore that and go for it.
Speaker 10: Thank you. As long as. Okay. And then I think one of the challenges for us in the fifth District is we do have some amazing Airbnb landlords. We met this weekend with one of our neighborhood associations, the ranchos. They have some amazing, unique homes. But if we put the cap at 700, there are currently 1300 participants. Participating without a law. And those individuals who are not participating because they're waiting for a law won't have a chance. And so I think one of the things we might want to consider is similar to how we did spreading out dispensaries. It would be great if we could spread out the stores. So they're not all concentrated in downtown or they're not all concentrated in the shore. Ms.. Tatum. We have three enforcement areas. For development services, correct?
Speaker 3: Yes. Those generally.
Speaker 5: Correspond to.
Speaker 3: The police report.
Speaker 9: Police districts as well.
Speaker 10: Wonderful. Well, police. Previous police districts before we added South Division back. Great. So that means that there are three areas of the city. And so my proposal would be. Until housing stock reaches. Councilman Pierce, can you remind me what you wanted it to be? Each 8%. Until housing stock reaches 8%, that we limit the number of short term rentals. 2.6%. That is less than the 1%. It comes in somewhere around, I think, 950. However, you would limit the number in any district. So in any development services district to no more than. 500. So that means that. That means that in part of the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth between the four of us, the East Division, there would be no more than 500. It doesn't increase the limit of the whole city above the 950. But it also means that. North Long Beach, who has very few, if any at all right now, would potentially be able to have someone who say runs out to a student September through June. They'd be able to do their short term rental in the summer. Right now, they would not be able to. Anyone who is not currently in the platform or aware of this discussion has no chance of participating. Well, there's currently, according to Ms.. Tatum's discussion with me earlier, 1300 people participating in the process today. And if we take it down to 750 or 1000, that means that of the people who are participating today. A third of them won't be able to participate legally.
Speaker 12: So to answer if I accept this one, is that no one's operating legally right now. And so the idea that we would grandfather in or give people that are currently acting illegally, which seems to me like was part of the conversation, I think I have struggled with this so much the last four days. I'm good with the cap. I cannot support a thousand and I'm good with coming back with the percent discussion. When our housing stock reaches 8%.
Speaker 10: I'm trying to not reward people who are currently participating. I'm trying to reward the people that are not participating.
Speaker 12: The comment that you said that there's no way that people that are currently participating.
Speaker 10: No I'm saying the people who are not participating because it's not legal.
Speaker 3: Mhm.
Speaker 10: Are not going to have a chance to participate because.
Speaker 12: Currently that's not true. Because what's going to happen is city staff could you answer the question of how we would give permits to two operators or to host.
Speaker 9: So it's going to depend on how the how we set out what that number is going to be. And I think if we're going to set a number around 500 or 750, a low limit lower than who we have currently operating in the city, we're going to probably have to end up doing it by lottery. So it ends up being fair to everybody.
Speaker 12: So is there a reason why we wouldn't do a first come, first serve?
Speaker 9: Because how are we going to know, you know, if we have already? So in terms of the 1300s that are operating about. 890 or so our non primary, the other ones are hosted. So let's say that we have this number above and everybody comes on the same day. How, how are we going to really determine which is that first one, you know, if. That's my problem. I'm not sure if we are going to have to step back and.
Speaker 10: Really look at this issue. And I was trying to get that lottery to be more neighborhood based, right? So like in the ranchos, if there was a limit that they wouldn't have more than and I didn't want to get too complicated. I don't want to say, okay, the ranchos is 1400 homes. No more than 1% of the ranchos can be used. It just got to be such a linear level. That was too complicated. So I tried to stay at the top level, which is enforcement districts. And the reason I thought enforcement districts made sense is development services is going to be doing the enforcement. And so if we wanted to say, well, allow a thousand units and no more than 33% in any enforcement district, that helps, too, because there are going to be districts that are never going to reach that maximum. They're are just areas that aren't as popular. So it kind of limits it in a way that also helps with housing. I was just trying to come up with a solution so that we don't have I mean, here we are again, fistfights in the lobby because there are currently almost 900 and those are the ones we know of. And then I'd like also to talk about something that I have not seen covered here. I want to know how we ban. Platforms that don't abide by the rules. If you are a platform and you don't abide by the rules, I want to ban you and give you a two year probation or whatever it is. But if we have a neighbor who has been put on notice that they cannot host and that. Platform continues to post their unit that platforms should be banned from our city. And otherwise I don't know how we continue to enforce it becomes too expensive.
Speaker 5: And if.
Speaker 3: That is your wish, that should probably be included in the.
Speaker 5: Motion.
Speaker 10: So I'd like a friendly to have the staff come back with some kind of process for ensuring that when platforms do not obey our ordinance and participate, that there is a probation and banning process.
Speaker 12: And I'm supportive of that part.
Speaker 10: I don't know how we get to the other part. I'm just throwing stuff out there.
Speaker 12: I've as I said, I've really struggled with this the last several days. And and the thing that I know that I'm comfortable with is a low number and exploring a percentage at a later date. And. You know, I've done a lot of work on this over the last almost three years and. I know that we're not going to get to a place where everybody agrees, but when we're struggling on housing, questions like the bond last week, it makes sense to me that we're protecting our housing stock. I would like to get to a lower number.
Speaker 10: So what if we propose half a percent? That would be 850.
Speaker 12: Like I hear from my.
Speaker 10: Colleagues, there's 890 in the city. That means only 40 of them would be. Theoretically not that those should get priority. I almost feel like the people who are not on a platform right now should get priority. But I don't know how to do that either. Or if you could get a letter of support from every neighbor that touches your property.
Speaker 12: So with that, we've got a couple other folks queued up. I'll do one more round of that and then see what I can accept.
Speaker 10: So I just use me.
Speaker 13: Councilwoman Pierce, before we move on to another subject, I want to. I was hoping I could get some clarity when you first mentioned the percentage of rental housing stock that you are concerned with, the number you gave us was 9%, and then that over time morphed into 8%. So I don't know if you missed.
Speaker 12: The housing the healthy housing vacancy stock from all the housing advocates. And I believe the city said it, too, is 8%. Okay. I do not want to chip in to that 8%. So maybe you can come back when the housing market is looking at like it's 8%. I had said nine because I thought if we started exploring a percentage at nine that it would make sure we protected that 8% and didn't dip into it with stars. So that makes sense.
Speaker 9: A little bit.
Speaker 13: It makes a little bit sense, except your motion was at nine nine. And I want to make sure. Are we.
Speaker 12: I'd like to keep it at nine.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 10: So my friendly is to be at a half a percent until housing stock reaches 9%. And then it would come back to the council agenda used by the staff to potentially go up to 1%, which means it doesn't automatically go up.
Speaker 12: I definitely want to make sure it doesn't automatically go up. I would like to ask staff I've heard four different numbers and this will help me get to a place with you. I've heard four different numbers on how many non primary units we've have. Where does that data come from?
Speaker 9: This was data that was put together by a host compliance. When we initially started this, the study. When was that?
Speaker 12: When was that? Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 9: It was March of 2018.
Speaker 12: My question is, more than that, we have a data set, and I know that there's another data set that other people have talked about. And perhaps whenever we're looking at this data, we could make sure we're comparing, you know what? Whether I don't know what the other platform is that people have used to compare data, I know that it's difficult to get. The second part is. I lost my thought. I'm really trying to to get to a place where I'm comfortable tonight. Having the percentage go up. I want to make sure that it's it's a process that this council has to go through again. The percent is still an issue, a challenge. And I I'll give one more round to hear from my colleagues and then and then see where we're at.
Speaker 10: And my last question is, you made a change, I think, to limit all vacation rentals in the entire city to 90 days. So. In my neighborhood. I have a neighbor who lives here part year and they live in Utah part of the year. So they wouldn't be able to rent out their home anymore for part of the year when they're gone. And so is there any flexibility in allowing people who use it as their primary residence?
Speaker 12: So when.
Speaker 3: They.
Speaker 10: Rent it, when they're.
Speaker 12: If it's their primary residence, they get 90 days currently in the ordinance. The goal was to make sure that we're not having big companies come in. I don't know if they're if staff wants to talk about another process that might be able to help somebody that lives here half time.
Speaker 10: So the problem with that is not in your side, but the staff determined a new a new made up rule of what a primary residence is. It has no legal or taxation standing. And so they determined out of their analysis, 275 days make something a primary residence. And that's means that you go out of town for maybe the summer. But that's not the experience of people who take care of family out of state and all those.
Speaker 12: And I think it's the majority of experience. And when we start trying to govern for every half of a percent of a population, then we get in a sticky place.
Speaker 10: I would just argue and again, against development services, no disrespect, I appreciate the work that you did. In my talking with platforms, I think that the average number of people for a non primary residence and again the definition of non primary is completely it shouldn't be named that but. The number of days they extend to their property does not align with what development services staff are saying. That's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I am going to ensure Bruno.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I'd like to follow up on the 90 day rule. Consider for at least the east side. Think of the north neighborhood north of Cal State, Long Beach, north of Atherton, between Olivetti and Bellflower. So our stories are, I would say, primarily student housing. So classes started today at Cal State Long Beach, and they'll end on May eight. And that, I think is 108 days. So if there's nothing magical about the 90 days, you could extend it to, say, 120 days and accommodate student housing for a semester. A little different than the folks giving up their house for the summer. You could actually accommodate student housing this way. And then I just want to get in the weeds a little bit on the petition issue. As I said, we don't have a lot of good experience in the fourth year. We have a lot of experience with petitions, and it has to do with preferential parking districts. Every street that dead ends into Atherton from Palo Verde to Bellflower, is a preferential parking district street. Every one of those streets had to have a petition signed by the neighbors. And what we found through trial and error, and this was at the recommendation of public works, is do this by mail. A lot of speakers here warned about pitting neighbor against neighbor of you send neighbors out with a petition. You have two problems. You're welcoming arguments. And also you might have a sales job on behalf of the person circulating the petition. We found very few neutral petition carriers in preferential parking. So I guess maybe since we're in the mode of friendly amendments, if we're talking about petitions, I would make a friendly amendment that this be done by mail. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Fine. And are you going to.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 0: We're going to go with these emotions. We're going to wait to everyone finish The Apprentice, because we've got about nine of them. And when we go see the attorneys, we're just going to continue until we make the final motions.
Speaker 13: Right. I don't think we're there yet. I'm not sure if if I understood. Counsel man super, super, nice, friendly amendment. It is to require that a petition be circulated via email right then door to door. So, Councilwoman Pierce, is that something that you can embrace? So it would require a petition to go out via mail rather than a door to door solicitation.
Speaker 12: I think I'm okay with that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 12: You've got to think a little bit because it's the first time I've heard it. Okay. I'll. I'll speak at the very end and reconfirm.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: I want to minimize.
Speaker 5: It's an interesting concept because it doesn't require the residents to circulate the petition door to door and get themselves in a confrontational situation. I like it. I'm wondering, is there a way that we can validate the signatures and, you know, make sure that the the property. Address matches up with the property owner that's on the signature and all of that. Is there some sort of verification or maybe an affirmation that can be included in the petition from the person who signs it?
Speaker 13: So typically we would probably on a going forward basis, if this were to pass as part of the implementing regulations, we would probably draft a form of a petition that would include an affirmation swearing under penalty of perjury. As I understood the main motion part of what Councilwoman Pierce wants is for the city clerk's office to take the responsibility for verifying the signatures. They're well versed in doing that. I assume they can do that in this case. Yep.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I think that actually would work out a lot better for the residents as well, because they don't have to put themselves in a situation where they're having those uncomfortable conversations. I like it to the extent that that matters. I like it. I did want to also add.
Speaker 7: Councilmember, I hate to interrupt, but we should bring back to you some of the cost of mailing as well. That currently is when we do preferential parking that's passed on to the people who are doing it. It's normally a pretty small area. If we're talking of of a larger area, we should get you that information so that you have it.
Speaker 5: I think that would be important, but I would like it to be included in the ordinance. We can discuss it when we do, when it comes back to us and we have to vote on it. But I think that the neighborhood. Organizations that want to circulate the petition can bear the cost of that depending on what it is. But I think the cost of mailing is, is, is probably manageable. But I am interested in seeing that now. Right now, the ordinance as proposed says the timing of the opt out petition process is 180 days after. I don't have the language in front of me, but after the law is adopted, is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes. But.
Speaker 5: Including Coastal Commission. It's 180 days after Coastal Commission.
Speaker 13: 180 days after coastal.
Speaker 5: Right. So laws adopted approved by coastal 180 days after. Is the statute of limitations in terms of when you can bring up circulate a petition? I think that's problematic because if you look about look at this and look at generations to come, you know, maybe the neighborhood is okay with the vacation rentals in their home today, but maybe future generations aren't. So what I would like to do is add a provision that allows for residents to file.
Speaker 3: A, quote.
Speaker 5: Request for consideration to circulate petition.
Speaker 3: After the.
Speaker 5: Timeline has expired. So if the timeline has expired, they can petition development services for a request for consideration to circulate petition. If that was permitted.
Speaker 3: The threshold would be two thirds of the.
Speaker 5: Property owners in the tract, not 50 plus one, and they would have to get signatures gathered and submitted within 60 days. So it allows for the neighborhood to continue to have an interest in circulating a petition in their neighborhood, but requires them to petition development services for the opportunity to do so.
Speaker 3: It raises the threshold.
Speaker 5: So that there are protections in there to ensure that there's enough outreach conducted on the law, since the law won't be fresh as it will be 180 days out.
Speaker 13: So as I understand, that proposal is in essence, there will there will always be an opt out provision, if you would opt out within the first 180 days with 50% plus one anytime after that, you could opt out with the census tract. Two thirds.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 5: And with a request to enter.
Speaker 3: With a request to develop an observation.
Speaker 5: I guess that was a question to me. Add the proposed ordinance and I can tell you what page it's on. It says that the 180 days are after it's approved by Coastal Commission. So right now, as the ordinance is written, you have 180 days from the date, whatever date that is, that Coastal Commission approves it. Right now, as it's written, there would be no more opportunity to petition. So ten years from now, a neighborhood couldn't petition for an opt out. This is saying that even once that statutory period has run, you can apply for consideration to circulate a petition.
Speaker 13: So just for clarification, the way it's currently written there is and correct me if I'm wrong, but there is an opt out provision after three years. So if they were off or if they were. If the.
Speaker 9: If if an area had actually opted out, then three years later people would come back and it could be repealed. So the onus is on the people that want to repeal it to circulate a petition.
Speaker 5: That's for those that have already opted out. Correct. Not for a fresh opt out petition. I would like opportunities for fresh opt out petitions as homes change, generations change, characters change, etc..
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 13: This woman appears to accept that as a friendly.
Speaker 12: I guess my one question is on the. Mike is on the two thirds versus 50%. So originally you're okay with 50%, but not for the latter period. I mean, it would make sense to make some consistency. So if you could make it 50% plus one, then I would be comfortable with it.
Speaker 5: Sure, I'm the owner and I'm open to it. The only reason I was trying to do that is to distinguish petitions filed in the initial petition hearing from those filed after the petition period. And so it's placing upon the petitioners an additional burden because they've fallen outside of the petition period. But I'm happy to. I mean, if we're going to just make a 50 plus one, then why even have a termination period?
Speaker 12: Well, I mean, I think that that was some discussion around having it always be available, but not wanting it to be all the time. You know, if it was 180 days rolling, then you would be able to maybe every 180 days have an option, I guess. I don't I don't like the two thirds number. I feel like that is difficult. So. Okay. And so we.
Speaker 5: Can make it 50% plus one for the petition. But I think there should be a petition process because even look.
Speaker 12: I'm good with the process.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. The property owners who are choosing to rent their house out as a vacation rental and going through the city process to get licensed and following the rules, also have rights that we need to honor and respect. And they need to be able to have some sort of notice of when their restrictions on their property are going to change and their opportunities.
Speaker 12: As I've said before, this was the one area that I, I was really trying to focus on the caps and the other areas. So this is where I dug in. But it just makes sense to me if we're going have 50% that it stayed consistent, if that's where we're at. So I appreciate that.
Speaker 13: So. So now the the I guess the accepted friendly is that at any time a neighborhood could opt out at any time with 50% plus one. So whether so we would. Right now the way it's written is they would have to choose to opt out within 180 days after Coastal Commission approval. But if we remove that restriction, they would be able to opt out at any time with 50% plus one is that I just want make sure that's understand.
Speaker 5: I think that's where Councilmember Pearce is comfortable.
Speaker 12: Yes. And comfortable with the mail piece as well.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 5: Still have to petition if it's outside of that window.
Speaker 13: Okay. So the only. Okay. So. So the only difference is, after 180 days, they would have to request permission from development services to circulate a petition. But they wouldn't have to do that in the first hundred and 80 days.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. No, we don't have.
Speaker 5: Company. I'm. I made a friendly. It was not accepted, so it was accepted in a different form. So I'm really not sure where we're at. I want the property owner to be able to have some notice that there's going to be petitions circulated about his or her property and to have some understanding of when that might come so that it's not in perpetuity. And so I, I assume that happens. Putting forth an appeal process would allow them to put forth the effort, but would have a different standard than the initial statutory period. But I'm open to hearing ideas and thoughts because maybe someone else has a better pathway for us to get there.
Speaker 13: Okay. So we're not there on that particular friendly yet.
Speaker 12: Okay. And just thanks, everybody, for going through.
Speaker 3: This process with us.
Speaker 0: Okay, fine. Councilman, your anger.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Vice Mayor. The the excuse me. If I missed part of the conversation, I had to take a bio break. Yeah, of. In regards to the discussion that we had earlier, I didn't hear any more about the number versus the percentage. And then there was a discussion again about reintroducing the percentage and forget the number. So where are we with that? Is it is it is it a number or is it a percentage? What are we looking for?
Speaker 13: I don't think that we've settled on anything. There's been a lot of discussion. We've talked about 950, seven 5500, a half a percent, a 4%. So that's still up for consideration.
Speaker 2: All right. In terms of the current discussion that we had just finished right now. Just wondering if. We're still looking at census tracts when we're looking at opting out or we're looking at there was a. We can't decide that one either. Okay. I am missing nothing. Right? I'll. I'll come back later.
Speaker 0: We got Councilwoman Cindy us.
Speaker 3: Question was answered already. Sorry. Up if I thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Austin.
Speaker 6: So from my observations and just to quote our city attorney, I don't think we're there yet. And. In the SEC for the sake of time. And I don't know if we're going to get there tonight either. It just sounds like there's a lot of a lot of open ended items still here. And, you know, Counsel, we can we can just queue up and keep showing up over and over again. We have to land on something. Right. And I understand, Councilmember Pearce, you are you know, you said you don't you don't feel good about certain things that have been proposed. But I'm really appealing to us all to find some compromise here. I think the original plan from staff was 1700, which was was obviously not a number that that I'm hearing that there's consensus on a not another number was thrown out in a thousand because that's 1% and there's no real consensus here. I'm not hearing that. Then I heard a half a percent and still there's no consensus on that.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think I mean, we have to land somewhere and I will.
Speaker 2: I don't want to.
Speaker 6: My district, there's not I'm not hearing a whole lot of rumblings from my constituents around this particular issue. I recognize that this is an issue that impacts our downtown and our coastal communities. And so I'm giving a lot of deference this evening to my colleagues who represent those those communities that are most impacted. But we have to get somewhere. And I guess I'm just I'm appealing to you guys to figure it out. You sit next to each other, you're talking to each other. And again, you know, our time is limited. And so I'm not going to take up my 5 minutes. I'm just going to say that that I was willing to go with 1%. I'm willing to go with 5%. I want to move this issue so that we can can have some clarity for for many stakeholders that have come out here this evening to advocate for one position or another.
Speaker 0: Oh, thanks. Thank you. I know no one. I knew that like we go into tomorrow on this, but it looks like that's what we're going to do. So I'm going to take this back to. This is mango. We are going to get emotional and eventually we.
Speaker 10: I think if possible, I'm okay. Right. So to kind of wrap in Councilman Price's comments. Councilman Pearce proposed that every year this comes back to the council. And so what I would request is that 180 days resets every year at the time that it comes back to the council. So let's say and the staff will know more if we land on something. Soon. Meaning tonight? When would this come back? As an ordinance to be adopted? And when would that go into place?
Speaker 13: Well.
Speaker 10: There's a lot of changes. I know a lot of changes.
Speaker 13: I mean, we would try to get it back within a month and there's going to be a lot of drafting to to get it in order. But.
Speaker 10: So we're talking February would be a potential first reading. March would be a second reading. It would implement in June, July.
Speaker 13: Technically June or July. But honestly, this involves the coastal zone and wouldn't become effective in the coastal zone. And typically we don't like the bifurcates. So I see it a year in front of the Coastal Commission before we had a finalized ordinance and I would not be surprised if the Coastal Commission sent us back some of their own changes.
Speaker 10: Okay, so let's start with this. I propose that we target implementation of October one. The reason this is significant is it is also the beginning of the budget year. So if we do decide to siphon off a percentage of funding in a way to something or the other, that means that every year on October one, that licensing period resets. And if we change from 1000 to 500, we'll be able to reset the budget at a coordinated time so we can change the amount we expect to receive in total. So my friendly would be that. The ordinance. Hopefully implement on October one or if any other date in future years. It come back to council by July 1st for consideration of the housing stock, for adjustments of availability that we start with. I'm just going to put it out there because it sounded like people had a kind of consensus around 1,006%. Okay. No, no. I see two no's, but I don't see any other noes besides the 2%, the two one. So if I have to. Okay, I'll make a substitute motion. My substitute motion is and I know this is hard, but I think we can get consensus here. And I'm really trying to work within the framework you started. I'm open to going down to half a percent, if that makes you feel better. Which is. 850. Don't make a substitute. Okay, so here's my. I want to land like l we got to land on something. I do have s here is my district. Not nearly as many as the two of you, but I have had very heated conversations about these. So resets every year brought back to council with the housing stock in July. That we start with point a half a percent. Half a percent is 850. Which is less than a thousand, which is way less than 1700. It's half of 1700 until the housing stock is 9%, at which time there would be a recommendation to consider increasing it. And I think that there's importance behind the housing advocates. The less units you have in the market, the less amount. If we really get to move forward with putting the money into affordable housing, the less money there is for the affordable housing side. So I think that's something to also consider, right? And then that the ballot process start with a petition that opens every year in July. And is mailed to the situs address. That's the landlord's on record address at the assessor's office of the 100 closest residences. And the reason I say this is right now we have a process in development services that both you and I have tried to work on that costs people $5,000 for a permit to get something done because they have to mail to 1000 feet of the permit. And so I am 100% supportive of the mail idea. But I also think it's really important that we not make it so expensive that neighborhoods can't afford to start the process. And so I was I'm open to the 300 closest residents. I'm open to 100 closest residents. When you call the assessor's office, you give an address, they draw a circle around it, and they send you an Excel file that has the address, the situs address of everyone that is in that GIS mapping zone, and it costs like $29. So that would solve the problem of people who don't live in your neighborhood making decisions for you. Because my census tracts are large and some of the ones in downtown are extremely large. So that would be my friendly counsel.
Speaker 3: And can I just add that it will be a lot more practical? Is the radius around the that the the area.
Speaker 10: That's what I just said.
Speaker 3: You said the 100 nearest. Did you mean a radius.
Speaker 10: Well it would be a radius, yes. But the challenge is the radius around one unit in Councilman Pearce's district is going to be way more units than in mine.
Speaker 3: Not if we're talking about you have 38. The way we do it right now, it's a radius around the property, right? It's a distance radius. Not it doesn't consider the number of units. It's however many, many units are within that radius.
Speaker 10: Right. And respectfully, the assessor's office can draw a radius and when it hits 300 units or properties, they can push pause. X. Hartline is the guy who does it. Yeah, I'm just saying because otherwise if you take one property in Councilwoman Pearce's district, she could theoretically have 3000 mailers. So if you want to ban an STR in second district in census tract and I have the exact census tract, it will cost someone thousands of dollars to do that mailing. It would just be prohibitive. And I was just trying to be respectful to people who have a bad neighbor that's a bad landlord. So or I'm also open to a substitute motion to bring this back in two weeks where staff do an idea of all the things they've heard tonight and bring it back again. But I also want to be respectful of the people who are here for the pool and all the other items tonight too.
Speaker 13: Councilman Mongo The radius mailing works very well with projects that we have coming before us because we draw the radius from the project itself. But here, I don't know where you'd start drawing the radius. In other words, would it be the person who had the idea to institute a potential ban? Would you draw the 300 the.
Speaker 10: House you'd like to ban? Well, you want to just ban a whole neighborhood without a bad landlord.
Speaker 13: Well, yeah, that's what we're that's what we've been talking about, that that whole neighborhoods, even though they may not even have a urban or a role, could. Could petition to opt out of this entire process.
Speaker 10: So that is not what I discussed at this dais when this came last time. So just as the heads up that I made a friendly or discussed this other alternative, and I'm shocked that it didn't make it into the ordinance because when I was trying to talk with staff about how do you have. Good landlords. And then 3800 people who they don't know get to tell them they can't have it.
Speaker 12: Even though they have a point of order.
Speaker 10: It's my time.
Speaker 12: So and you're but a few minutes over. And so I waited for two months and that's.
Speaker 10: The chair's decision.
Speaker 0: That is so true. Now we're going to move on.
Speaker 12: I also have the ability to do point of order maximum.
Speaker 0: And first.
Speaker 12: I would like to call a question and see where we're at. Okay. So I am going to you know, yes, 1700 was what was on the table before. But we've had somebody here make a motion for a thousand and we've had someone make a motion for 500. So I would like to make a motion. All the things that I read earlier, the small changes, and to include a max cap at 750. With the male opt out. Census tracts. With 50% plus one. And I accept the the petitioning annually from my other two council colleagues. That seems like that's where the support is. And I want to I know that this has taken a long time, but I needed to hear from my counsel colleagues before making a final motion. So that is my motion. Can I get a second?
Speaker 5: I've already second in the motion and I'm okay. Or is this a brand new motion?
Speaker 12: I was the motion we did earlier, plus what we just talked about.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I'm the second of that motion. I accept that. I do ask staff to if you could please clarify what you believe the opt out provision means in light of the amendments, because I wanted to make sure that that was clear for our residents. I think when we envision.
Speaker 3: The opt out provision, it wasn't based around a bad actor, it was just neighborhoods.
Speaker 5: Having a sense of whether or not the.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood collectively wanted to have non hosted or non primary actors in the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: It was not at all based upon a problem property.
Speaker 3: It was just the concept. Do we want them and do we want to support them or.
Speaker 5: Do we not? And non primary ACR would be in layperson's terms, a vacation rental where the owner is not living there. It's being rented out up to 365 days a year.
Speaker 3: Okay. 19 is correct.
Speaker 5: For the non primary, nine primaries, not 90 days.
Speaker 12: I made that motion earlier.
Speaker 10: Yes. She wants to make it 90 for everyone. I tried to.
Speaker 5: I must have missed that. I thought it was vacation homes could go. I'm talking about non primary vacation rentals.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 9: As the ordinance is written, that's how it is.
Speaker 12: I called it hosted Unhosted. That unhosted be.
Speaker 3: 90 days across the board.
Speaker 5: Oh, I can't support that. I'm sorry. I must have missed that. I can't support that.
Speaker 2: Point of order here. There's a motion that I see here that was not seconded. Does that motion die? Yeah. There's not there's not a motive. There's nothing here.
Speaker 13: Right. Right now that Councilwoman Price has made a motion. Councilwoman Pierce has seconded the motion. There's been a number of friends. Sorry. Councilwoman Pierce has made the motion. Councilman, Woman Price has seconded the motion. There have been a number of friendlies, some of which have been accepted, some of which have not been accepted. One of the first notes I took from Councilwoman Pierce's motion was that there would be a 90 day max across the city for Unhosted rentals.
Speaker 2: Now. The other part.
Speaker 3: Is that.
Speaker 2: She called for the question. We didn't vote out of question. She went on and made another motion. No, added to it.
Speaker 13: Look, I know I don't think she made another motion. I think she was revising her motion to reflect the comments of the other council members so that we could at least land on whatever the magic number is for.
Speaker 3: If we can.
Speaker 13: The total number of short term rentals that we would have in the city.
Speaker 2: I think the better way of putting it would have been instead of saying kind of question you say, I want to amend my motion.
Speaker 12: I wanted to amend my motion to add that.
Speaker 2: We keep.
Speaker 12: The comments. Yeah, that's fine. It's been a long discussion. We've talked about a lot of issues. I want to. I do want a vote, which is why I said call the question, because I would like to take a vote and see where we're at with 750. With the changes that I made to the 90 days and with. That being able to be petitioned annually. So the things that we talked about.
Speaker 13: So I want to be clear on the petition. So. Any time after this has been implemented, this ordinance has been implemented. Anyone within a census tract could start the process on an annual basis to opt out. So yes. Are we still having a first opt out period? In other words, are they required to opt out with? It's currently written that they are required to opt out within 180 days initially and we could keep that. And then on an annual basis, people could choose to initiate that process. Is that what you're intending?
Speaker 12: I think that that's the intent of on some price.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 13: Okay. So the initial period, they have 180 days to opt out. That would re trigger every calendar year after that.
Speaker 12: Correct. Call the question. Just have the.
Speaker 3: Vote. I. Okay.
Speaker 0: So is that okay? Can you make exceptions up to this point?
Speaker 13: I'm not sure if Councilwoman Mongo because I can't see the board if she got a second for her motion. Daryl gave her a second. So, yes, there is room for a substitute. Substitute. And Councilwoman Pryce indicated that she's going to make a substitute substitute motion.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yet the proposed ordinance, I'm going to request that the 1%, which is roughly 1700, be amended to 1000 maximum non primary rentals and that that number can change is subject to change based on the vacancy rates of the city, which shall be reported to council on an annual basis. My motion also requests that. The opt out provision that is included in the proposed ordinance be changed to reflect a threshold of 50% plus one instead of two thirds of the property owners within the census tracts to be petitioned by mail option. Cost of that will go to the census tract and will be reported back by council at the next meeting. My motion is that the platform. Be expected to remove the name of anyone that's on the prohibition list from their site and that they be expected to work with city staff to update that list on a regular basis as determined by development services to be.
Speaker 3: Appropriate. Let me just look at some of my other.
Speaker 2: Well, she's looking at that. I have another parliamentary question here. There are some aspects of the substitute substitute motion that I like and others that I don't. We break it up.
Speaker 12: We vote on it.
Speaker 3: Piece by piece.
Speaker 2: When we break up, for example, though, break out the 1000. More on that. Break out the.
Speaker 10: That's how we did the friendlies the other day.
Speaker 2: The. Without a doubt. About. Yeah, about 50 plus one. I like that. But you see, there's one motion there that I don't like. So if I wanted to write the baby with the bathwater, I'd rather use throughout the bathwater and keep the baby.
Speaker 9: Hmm. That's a good idea.
Speaker 2: I mean, what? I mean, that's up to you. I mean, I would work better with that if we go down a list. Yes.
Speaker 13: Yes. But I need further clarification on your motion, because I want to make sure your motion is rather compact, which I like. But are you are that's the totality of your motion, right? So there were a bunch of friendlies and things that cause that were in relationship to Councilwoman Pierce's motion. That's not part of yours.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: But I want to make sure that the opt out is specific to non primary. Properties. So Unhosted whatever we want to call it, the vacation rentals.
Speaker 13: So so your motion is in essence to adopt the staff's recommendation as reflected in the draft ordinance, except for the basically two points that you just raised.
Speaker 5: Yes. As to that. Yes. So if if so, basically, my motion has two components, the number of properties that can be available for rental as a short term rental and the opt out provision. So that's my substitute substitute. I'd like to keep it as simple as possible if if the city attorney's is amenable to it, I'd like to take those two items and take them as separate votes.
Speaker 13: You could make a motion to divide the question and also was willing to divide the question.
Speaker 5: I make a motion to divide the question.
Speaker 13: Is there a second?
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: With that, I make a motion to reduce the staff's recommendation of 1% of housing stock, which would be roughly 1700. I'd like to reduce that number to 1000. Non primary short term rentals cap.
Speaker 0: Are we ready to vote on it? Yes, I.
Speaker 13: So is there a there's there is second to that. Okay. Mongo is second to that. So all we're voting on now is the cap. And the motion is to approve a cap with a limit of 1000. Nine primary.
Speaker 5: That's the motion. Look got.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 13: You can discuss it.
Speaker 0: Yes, but you will get the vote. Can you discuss it now? Yes. Do we vote?
Speaker 13: You can discuss it before you vote.
Speaker 10: I'm in support of this item of seconding it. While I would prefer 0.6%, which is a thousand units, so that as we add units to the market, more becomes available. Would you be open 2.6%, which is approximately 1000? It's between 950 and 1020. I don't know the exact number.
Speaker 5: I'd like the numerical cap at 1000 to try to get. I'll still.
Speaker 10: Support it.
Speaker 0: And. Okay. Mrs. Occupy's peers actually got it. Well, I was on the speaker's list.
Speaker 12: I see that I have a real hard time with a thousand considering I just made a motion for 750. So let's, let's vote on a thousand, and we're just gonna have to go through this process, guys.
Speaker 13: Okay. The vote on whether or not to accept 1000 is the cap. Yes or no?
Speaker 1: The motion carries.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'd like to make a motion that the opt out provision that's listed in the staff's recommendation have a lowered threshold to allow for 50% plus one of the census tract of property owners, and that the property owners have the opportunity to circulate the petition on an annual basis.
Speaker 0: This cache all.
Speaker 1: Motion carries.
Speaker 13: That concludes this item, basically. And we will bring back an ordinance as soon as we can.
Speaker 12: I'm sorry.
Speaker 13: Yeah. And that included I clarified with Councilwoman Pryce that that her motion included the staff recommendation. Save for those two items that we voted on separately.
Speaker 12: So I. Okay. You got me, guys, because I thought that we had passed out being able to vote on different things and there were some administrative things that I wanted to get in. I understand the support wasn't there for the for the 90 days, but it would be a courtesy if I could read back and have voted on the other items that that are about enforcement. We've been doing this for a long time today.
Speaker 5: I would I mean, I have no objection to that. But to be.
Speaker 3: Fair.
Speaker 0: We can do that, can we?
Speaker 3: To be fair.
Speaker 5: I think there was an agreement for the 750 that you were recommending. But then we got tied up on the opt out process and it got very confusing. So the substitute substitute was an effort to try to simplify matters and narrow the issues. If council colleagues want to open that up and look at other issues, I'm happy to do so. But I think we were we had a lot of agreement until we got into some disagreement at the end and the conversation wasn't moving forward.
Speaker 12: And I would hate for one minute to throw off a lot of work that was done previously. And I was not clear that that this part was not going to be part of that vote.
Speaker 3: No, because that's not.
Speaker 13: The way this will come back for a new first reading. So there would be an opportunity if the new first reading to further tweak the ordinance from a minor. I mean, you know, you have to pass it, but you could make minor tweaks to it. Certainly if you wanted to accomplish what you're suggesting, Councilwoman Pearce, someone would have to make a motion to rescind the action we just took and opened it all back up.
Speaker 12: I just wanted to be quick, so I'm going to make a motion so I at least so we don't have to wait an order.
Speaker 10: Can we follow the speaker's list?
Speaker 12: Motion for reconsider place.
Speaker 10: Several speakers list. Can she does you have to queue for that or no.
Speaker 13: No, but it would have to be somebody that voted in the. I guess you did vote in the majority. Did you vote for this? Yeah. You didn't vote for the first part. So it has to be somebody that voted for it to make a motion to reconsider.
Speaker 5: Make a motion to reconsider to allow Council member Pearce to put the items that she feels are important into this record.
Speaker 13: Okay, so do we have a second for that motion? Yes. All right. So we have a second now. Let's take a vote on the motion to reconsider. Yes or no?
Speaker 1: Comes membership in our. Watching carries.
Speaker 3: I right.
Speaker 10: I was the second year of the motion where reconsidering.
Speaker 12: So now. I'd like to make a motion. I will read this as quickly as possible.
Speaker 10: Point of order. It's a substitute. Substitute, so I think it's friendly. And we could still play for Kate.
Speaker 13: That's correct. Yeah. This would be a friendly.
Speaker 12: This is mainly administrative things that that we talked about earlier. We'll leave out the 90 days. So I would like to add and I read these sections earlier, so I'll try to go fast under section 70, a hosting platforms shall not process or complete any booking transactions for any ACR unless the ACR has a valid current registration issued by the city to the operator. Hosting platforms are required to list the SDR registration number and the date that that that permit does expire. Hosting platforms shall not process or complete any booking transactions that would exceed the number of days in Section five zero partitioning ten Section 90.
Speaker 3: D.
Speaker 12: If three fines have been issued against an STR. We want to replace the word STR with a host. Section 90. And Section 90 F, I and J. I'd like to replace the words any person with any person, any host platform or SDR operator in all three of those. It's unlawful to host unless the responsibilities of seven zero are not fully complied with. And those are the changes that I would like to have a vote on.
Speaker 5: But friendly.
Speaker 10: I accept them as well, but I would like to be able to speak through the speakers list. It's up to you to.
Speaker 0: Anyone copy the question?
Speaker 3: Because all for the question.
Speaker 10: It's my last comment. I just wanted to thank everyone because I know it's a frustrating process for you, but I know that even though many of us are frustrated, I think this has been one of the most rewarding policy developments that we've actually gone through. I know that it's unfortunate that it has to go through a substitute and a substitute substitute. And I don't want people to think that because they weren't the maker of the motion, that there's not a lot of recognition and support for the way that the policy was was brought forward. So I just think that that's important because I know that we don't always agree, and I know that the crowd doesn't always support everyone. And I think that eventually we got to a place that was great, and I just thought that that was really important.
Speaker 13: I just want to be clear before we vote. We're not dividing the question this time. We we're clear on the question with the friendlies that were accepted by Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 5: That would be my request. Yes.
Speaker 13: We are good.
Speaker 0: We can cover the vote, please.
Speaker 1: That's when the subpoena. Motion carries.
Speaker 0: Now let's deal with short term rentals. You guys are my. If you look at them. Yeah. Okay. We're going to take a three minute break and come back to Belmont Pool. I'll be here for the pool.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Councilwoman. Right. Councilwoman Sun has councilmember peers. Councilwoman Price. Council Member. Subpoena. Councilwoman. Mango. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Amir Garcia. We have a quorum.
Speaker 0: All right. Is. Excuse me, is that number 22? Okay. Yes, we're going to we're going to move some call 22. It's going to take us about 5 minutes. And then we're going to go to the big oh, my pool item.
Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Title 5, Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions of the Long Beach Municipal Code, by adding Chapter 5.77, related to short-term rentals, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading;