Speaker 0: Wonderful. So next up, we have our hearing out of over 30. Madam Clerk, turn it over to you as introduced item.
Speaker 1: Report from Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and include the public hearing. Declare Ordinance Amending Title five Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions. Read the first time and later vote in the next regular meeting for the City Council for Final Reading. Declare an ordinance approving a zoning code amendment amending Title 21 zoning regulations. Read the first time and later the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution authorizing City Manager to submit the local Coastal Program Amendment to the Coastal California Coastal Commission for its review citywide.
Speaker 0: This item is a short term rental proposed modifications. I'd like to turn it over to staff. Linda Tatum.
Speaker 4: I'd like to introduce I like to introduce the planning manager.
Speaker 3: Patricia Defender for to make a brief.
Speaker 4: Staff presentation on this item.
Speaker 2: You do so much. And good evening, members of the city council. Patricia, Defender for Planning Bureau Manager. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, great. This item before you is the approval of a California Coastal Commission, modifications to the city's short term rentals ordinance that was adopted by the City Council in late 2020. The Coastal Commission modifications do not materially change the ordinance as proposed as approved by City Council. They do not change the overall cap on UNHOSTED units citywide and generally represent procedural changes that pertain to properties in the coastal zone, which I will describe in more detail in later slides. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Thank you. Following is a brief history of this ordinance. On June 23rd, 2020, the ordinance to add Chapter 5.77 to the municipal code to regulate short term rentals was approved at that time, only hosted short term rentals were permitted under that ordinance. Subsequently, in December of 2020, the City Council adopted modifications to the original ordinance that allowed Unhosted short term rentals. On September 4th, 2020, and again on December 30th, 2020, the city submitted the short term rental ordinance and the revised ordinance to the California Coastal Commission, which requires an amendment to the city's adopted local coastal program. The local coastal program is comprised of the Land Use Plan and the implementation program, which are the ordinances that implement the the the land use plan. The implementation program is generally comprised of Title 21 Zoning Code and Title 22 subdivision code of the City's Municipal Code. And amendments to these chapters of the Municipal Code require approval and certification by the Coastal Commission in order to be effective in the city's coastal zone. The OCR, for those in the short term rentals ordinance, is a section in the Title 25 of the Municipal Code, which regulates businesses in the city. Given the overlap between regulating the short term rentals and land use and the Coastal Commission's authority to ensure access to the coast, the short term rentals ordinance similarly requires review and certification by the Coastal Commission and will be incorporated in the city's certified local coastal program. On December 15th, 2021, the Coastal Commission held a hearing on the local Coastal Program Amendment and required for modifications, the approval of which are before the City Council this evening. Next slide, please. Procedurally, the city has six months from the Coastal Commission's December action to adopt these modifications and resubmit the revised ordinance to the Coastal Commission for Final Certification. Once those steps are complete, the short term rental ordinance will be effective in the coastal zone. Next slide, please. Following is a summary of the modifications that are proposed. The first modification is the requirement for that a 350 non primary unhosted number of short term rentals be maintained in the coastal zone in order to maintain a level of short term rentals similar to those historic levels of short term run short term rentals that were in the coastal zone. As previously mentioned, the Coastal Commission action does not change the fees adopted citywide cap of 800 unhosted short term rentals and the Coastal Commission modification does clarify that the citywide cap cannot be used to limit the number of short term rentals in the coastal zone to less than 350. However, the city will be monitoring the 800 unit cap, including through a requirement to provide an annual report to the City Council and South will come back to the City Council if it appears that the city will exceed the cap. The second modification any prohibitions on short term rentals, either buildings or centers, block groups in the coastal zone would be required to obtain a local coastal development permit, and findings in support of those requirements have to be met, and I will describe those findings in a later slide. This is the main procedural change that will result from these modifications. The third modification establishes a periodic review by the Coastal Commission of Restrictions on short term rentals that are approved by the city to ensure that there are no cumulative impacts to public access to the coast. Finally, the fourth and last modification pertains to a commitment to non discriminatory services and ADA access as part of the registration process to maximize public access for all people. Next slide, please. The next few slides provide some sample scenarios related to the restrictions to short term rentals that are intended to be allowed by the short term rental ordinance. The ordinance does provide the ability of property owners to initiate a petition process to prohibit short term rentals within a census block group, to compare the current process with the process that would result from the proposed Coastal Commission modifications. Currently, the ordinance would require the property owner to complete a successful petition process and then be added on the list of restricted areas. With the proposed ordinance modifications, property owners will have to complete a successful petition process as they would under the current ordinance, that they would also have to obtain a local coastal development permit. If the findings can be made in the positive and the local coastal development permit is approved, then they will be added to the list of restricted areas for unhosted short term rentals. Next slide, please. Similarly, procedures would apply in order for individual buildings to be added to the list of prohibited buildings in which unhosted short term rentals are prohibited. The current ordinance would require the property owner to apply to be on the prohibited buildings list and then once on the list, the short term rental restriction would be enforced. With the proposed ordinance modifications, property owners will have to apply to be listed on the prohibited buildings list. They would then be required to obtain a local coastal development permit, which does require a hearing. If the findings can be made in the positive and the local coastal development permit is approved, then they will be added to the list of prohibited buildings and that in the short term, rental restriction will be enforced. Buildings that have restricted affordable units, which are not eligible to be short term rentals, as well as buildings with restrictive covenants that prohibit short term rentals or their equivalent dating back to before January 1st, 1977, and which pre-date the Coastal Act, would be exempt from this procedure and may be listed on the prohibited buildings list without the procedure. Next slide, please. Shown on this slide are the findings that would have to be made to grant the local coastal development permit to restrict short term rentals in the census block group group, or to place a building on the prohibited buildings list. The proposed modifications so you can see the restriction would be there would be findings that they would not include a cumulative impact to access to short term rentals and access to the coast for habitat restrictions would not result in substantial loss of visitor serving accommodations. They would not result in the loss of lower cost overnight accommodations. The proposed restrictions would not result in the net loss of short term, short term rentals. Below 425 short term rentals, which is comprised of both hosted and unhosted short term rentals, which are historic, which historically occur in the coastal zone, and the proposed restriction would not would be necessary to protect the neighborhood's stability. So these are the findings that would have to be made in order to approve the restrictions on short term rentals. Next slide, please. So these are the next steps that are required upon City Council approval. City staff will resubmit the revisions to the California Coastal Commission within the six months in order to meet the timeframes required by law. The Coastal Commission will then certify and ensure that the amendment is consistent with the original action of the Coastal Commission and that upon certification, the ACR ordinance will be in effect in the coastal zone . Next slide, please. The recommendation is that the city council accepts the California Coastal Commission, propose modifications and finalized the Coastal Commission certification process for the ACR ordinance as an amendment to the local coastal program. That concludes staff recommendation and staff is available to answer any questions that the Council might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think we should stick with the council. We do have a motion from our Councilmember Price, seconded by Councilmember Jurado, and we do have some comment from council, but with I think we should go to public comment first, if that's okay. I'd like to do that. They're okay with the maker of the motion. Okay. Clark is a Republican.
Speaker 3: If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or Dallas Star nine. Daniel Wilson. Your time begins now. You have 90 seconds.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Honorable Council members. My name is Daniel Wilson and I'm speaking on behalf of Unite your Local 11. Tonight, you have a rare opportunity amid an unprecedented global crisis that has wrecked your tourism industry. And as the city faces down a mandate to build nearly 27,000 units of housing over the next eight years, you can start bleeding your existing housing stock by encouraging them to be converted into party houses and luxury tourist rentals. We do not agree with the staff's presentation of this language that it would not increase the cap. That is absolutely not correct. We urge you tonight to reject the Coastal Commission's changes to your ordinance that allow 1150 units of housing to be converted into short term rentals. FDR are an existential threat to hotel workers. They take housing away from working people and displaced their jobs. At the last council meeting, this council unanimously stated that hotel and janitorial workers jobs are a priority by passing recall and retention. This week, you are considering whether to allow those same hotel workers jobs to be taken away by the short term rental market. This is the Uber, Lyft and Amazon of our industry. Please stand with the hard, hardworking hotel workers who build your tourism economy by rejecting these changes today and adopt a primary residence requirement to stop the.
Speaker 4: Bleeding of the city's housing stock. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Next speaker, we have Nancy Hannah. Your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Nancy Hanna. I am an attorney, and I work with better neighbors, L.A. and the city council should reject. The commission suggested modifications to expand the cap of Unhosted non primary non primary residences and dedicated short term rental properties. The short term rental ordinance was originally passed by Long Beach, had a cap of 800 units that would be allowed to be taken off the market and dedicated short term rentals. And now they're considering extending that cap by 43% to allow it to increase to 1150. I categorically disagree with the staff characterization of this modification, saying that they will not increase the cap. The plain language of the proposed modification does exactly that. I heard the staff say that they intend to monitor the cap, although it is very clear there is no plan for what to do if we reach a point that there is a registration beyond 800 as Long Beach going to start kicking out registered users or how will you claw back that cap? Also, please keep in mind that this monitoring and any response to it is not included in the language of these modifications or this ordinance. And so, in effect, this is just a placebo. And the actual language that the city council today is considering adopting is to increase the number of housing units that will be taken off of the housing market.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, we have Rockwell Lezama. Rick. How?
Speaker 2: See, when I started this production.
Speaker 5: De la France, I bought France. They were interpreting the color France.
Speaker 2: When I started at the concert hall.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon. All the members from the council.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm basically summer, so I try to stay out for the assignments.
Speaker 5: My name is regular. Sam and I have been working in the hotel industry for the last ten years.
Speaker 2: Then go to their own checker party. I got a migraine, so.
Speaker 5: I had the need to use a health check and half of the other check in order to cover my rent.
Speaker 2: Kirkpatrick Yes, my character is still in control. There be trouble.
Speaker 5: Not only that, rent is very expensive, but it's very difficult for me to find housing close to my job.
Speaker 2: Yes. To Sarkozy. They can just see apartments, can competition, arbitration, as you say.
Speaker 5: And that is due to the fact that many homes and apartment rooms have become it became a hotel rentals.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes. I keep I rapidly up to Apollo.
Speaker 5: I'm here to ask for your support in order to stop the London.
Speaker 2: Which are scandalous cambio de la commission cos they run Israeli.
Speaker 5: And for you to reject the changes made for from the Coastal Commission into the new law.
Speaker 2: But it also means more destruction. They cost us the apartments, we sell them. So that is the the familiar.
Speaker 5: We need to stop the destruction of houses and apartments and the elimination of homes for many families.
Speaker 2: Debi Mazar, similarly Iraqi theater, the residency principal in Ciudad de Los Angeles.
Speaker 5: So we had to copy the law that Los Angeles have regarding primary residence parameters that they have in Los Angeles.
Speaker 2: But I put their faith in their success, gets Ben Affleck banned. Also God is the Lord is gracious to.
Speaker 5: Stop the creation of those hundreds of party houses that are affecting really workers that work in our city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Next speaker is Leona Noble.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. I'm speaking on behalf of Billy Bray.
Speaker 4: And we also ask the council to reject the Coastal Commission recommendations and the recommendation of staff.
Speaker 2: We strongly disagree that the proposed.
Speaker 4: Changes won't present a problem for the residents and workers here in the city.
Speaker 2: Of Long Beach. At the very moment that we continue to see outrageous.
Speaker 4: Escalations in rents.
Speaker 2: 32% in my neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And in other neighborhoods, it's even worse. Those rent increases are going to be escalated if you approve.
Speaker 2: This increase.
Speaker 4: In.
Speaker 2: Airbnbs because you are going to decrease the available rental units.
Speaker 4: This is also the wrong time, in our opinion, for you to do this, because unfortunately, the federal, the state and the local rent subsidies and assistance being.
Speaker 2: Provided to our neighbors who.
Speaker 4: Are renters.
Speaker 2: Is ending.
Speaker 4: Literally in a matter.
Speaker 2: Of weeks. Now is not the time to further destabilize rental housing here in Long Beach. And we ask you to please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Susan Bailey. Your time begins.
Speaker 2: Now. Thank you. Thank you. Members of council. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I live in Long Beach in the coastal zone at 161 Glendora in Suzy's district. My husband and I split our time between Long Beach and Denver.
Speaker 4: Our home has never been used as a permanent long term rental.
Speaker 2: Because we use it more than half the year. And I believe the Coastal.
Speaker 4: Commission's recommendations.
Speaker 2: Are thoughtfully considered, have been reviewed, carefully, coexist with all the important forms of lodging, including the hotel lodging industry.
Speaker 4: Which is equally important.
Speaker 2: But short term rentals are places that people come and stay in neighborhoods.
Speaker 4: Near their families. They're typically in different districts, not always in hotel districts.
Speaker 2: And most importantly, they offer people an opportunity to come with their family, to cook in a kitchen.
Speaker 4: To have an affordable place to access the coast. And I would urge you to think through the very thoughtful recommendations presented by the Coastal Commission, which I believe are in keeping with council's prior ordinance and actually can coexist quite effectively. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Next speaker is Araceli King. Your 90 seconds begins now.
Speaker 2: And even in council tonight, I won't be representing Latinos in action in California. We are.
Speaker 4: Actually through our organization, you know, on the rejection of the Coastal Commission recommendations of Long Beach Ordinance.
Speaker 2: 30.
Speaker 4: Zero zero 34 due to the increase of the rentals that.
Speaker 2: Are going to be in in here. And also, we have a that the language is increasingly becoming, you know, unaffordable for residents.
Speaker 4: For visitors who want to enjoy the coastline is fine. But we think that, you know, it's going to take a lot of job and and everything from the people that is going to come and work for the hotels.
Speaker 2: So we are actually, you know, asking you to please check and verify these things.
Speaker 4: We work with. Like a lot of the.
Speaker 2: Community that is working into those areas. We think that we have to think about this and make sure that we are not going to be, you know.
Speaker 4: Misusing all the when I took the picture.
Speaker 2: The resources that we have into making our city better.
Speaker 4: By, you know.
Speaker 2: Losing a lot of jobs for our own people.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for letting me, you know, share what we were thinking about and really appreciate what you guys do. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Melody Osuna. Your time begins now.
Speaker 2: Good. Good evening, counsel. And my name is Melody Osuna. I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. I'm also a resident of District eight. We LaFlamme The Legal Aid Foundation, Los Angeles provides technical assistance and legal support to Long Beach tenants and community organizers. And as such, we take a great deal of interest in the affordability of the housing stock in the city. I first want to point out that we disagree with the staff report that.
Speaker 4: States the changes will not affect the 800 cap. It's simple math. If there are 800 short term rentals outside the coastal zone, this change allows 350 more rentals in the city, reaching 1150 short term rentals. As we shared with the Coastal Commission in December 2021.
Speaker 2: When it considered Long Beach expansion of short term rentals.
Speaker 4: In the coastal zone, we believe this ordinance will make.
Speaker 2: It more.
Speaker 4: Difficult for low and moderate income residents.
Speaker 2: Of Long Beach to stay housed within the coastal area. It's well-settled that short term rentals drive up the cost of housing stock for residents. Like other forms of.
Speaker 1: Gentrification, the effect of short.
Speaker 2: Term rentals is that they increase the value of an area at.
Speaker 4: The expense of its residents, many of whom are.
Speaker 2: Pushed out of their homes and neighborhoods because of rising rents. One, which is already experiencing staggering housing inflation data recently presented by Cal.
Speaker 4: State Long Beach, shows that rents increased by 5% or more in and most Long Beach.
Speaker 2: Zip codes. This amounts to more than $100.
Speaker 4: In extra costs per month.
Speaker 2: With the city where roughly 60% of the city residents are.
Speaker 3: Amber, did your 90 seconds begin now? And BURNETT. Your time begins now.
Speaker 4: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is and Burdette. I am of faith who did organizer with Clue Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. We strongly oppose the California Coastal Commission proposal that effectively removes 350 more housing units from Long Beach's rental and housing market. The Commission has a duty to protect access to the coast for all California's residents, including.
Speaker 2: Those living in Long.
Speaker 4: Beach. And that commitment is not served by expansion of the short term rental market. The question must be where is the attention of commission and of this council centered on tourists or on Long Beach families on providing what are effectively hotel accommodations in the case of unhosted rentals or on providing homes short term rentals. Remove housing for my residents while providing no lasting return for our city. You know, recently this council centered their attention and their votes on supporting the character of Long Beach by unanimously passing right to recall and retention. Ensuring that hotel workers can return to their livelihoods is laudable and forward thinking. But these same residents face the challenge of finding housing near their jobs. In fact, All Long Beach residents face the challenge of living in one of the least affordable cities in the country. So please do not vote to expand the short term rental cap, but rather focus on affordable housing for our Long Beach families. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Ailsa Chang, your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening, city council. My name is Ailsa Chang with Long Beach Forward. I mean, I can't agree more with the comments that have already been shared of those that are concerned and opposing the Coastal Commissioners recommendation. Frankly, it's actually quite confusing for the community because we understood that the Coastal Commission generally this was a contentious issue , particularly the 350 units above the 800 cap. And our understanding was that the Coastal Commission narrowly voted that down. So why it appears in the current staff report is very curious. But in any case, I ask you to consider city council. Who is the authority here on Long Beach? Short term rentals. Is it the city council or is it the Coastal Commission? Because the City Council ordinance already said 800 non primary resident short term rental cap, 800 unit cap. That was your decision and your authority yet. Now the Coastal Commission is coming in to say actually no 350 additional units in the coastal zone can be approved. So that means an additional that means a total of 1150. Are you going to let the coastal zone or the Coastal Commission bully the city council? I don't think you should. I think you should stick with what the city council originally passed, which is 800 non primary residents. Short term rentals. That is the cap.
Speaker 3: Garcia Lopez Reyes. Your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 2: Good evening, ma'am. Members of the council. My name is Chris Reyes, director of Leon Lambert Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Communities. We also have serious concerns about the post, the commission's modifications. Colombia Short term rental ordinance, Long Beach limits on hosted ACR to 800 throughout the city. The modification suggests expanding the cap to include an additional 350 UNHOSTED stores in the coastal zone. These proposed modifications could negatively impact renters and working families in Long Beach. This proposal would contribute to the ongoing housing prices that have even increased more during the pandemic. Instead of providing the needed solutions that we need around housing, we urge the Council not to allow these recommendations to weaken your own policy. And as a city council to protect housing by rejecting the Coastal Commission's modifications to the CAP on NCR and by also adopting an additional provision to limit ACR to the primary residence of hosts , as has been done in the city of Los Angeles. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Our next speaker is John Thompson. Your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 0: Yes, hello. My name is John Thompson. I'm the managing director of the West End here in Long Beach. And I will say that we also disagree with the staff report. We really applaud the recall and retention law that was passed. And we've worked very hard over the last three and four years to ensure that the ladies and gentlemen who work in the tourism industry have a place to come to work and a way to pay their bills. We absolutely urge that the Long Beach City Council today reject the Coastal Commission modifications and keep the number of stores designated at 800 regardless of where they are. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Our next speaker is Marianne Messina.
Speaker 4: Mariana Pina and I am a long term resident for over 20 years on the peninsula in District three. I am also a host for my duplex on the peninsula. I am a member and of the Peninsula Neighborhood Association and Alamitos B Garden Club very, very involved in my community here. I please accept the Coastal Commission recommendations that represents years of public input and successfully establishes standards for responsible operation of both home and sharing and vacation rentals. The Coastal Commission recommendations strengthen the ordinance and support affordable accommodations for visitors of coastal Long Beach. Now the recommendations help host with extra income in an expensive coastal region. Host are small neighborhood entrepreneurs who care about Long Beach and their communities. The ordinance introduces controls and limits to hold the host, the guest and the platform accountable. The caps and city registration requirements are in place. Provide lower coastal. Access without compromising neighborhood stability. The ordinance also protects neighborhoods and housing with percentage caps and multi-family developments, and by restricting to one plus one primary residence and one vacation rental per host owner. Please approve and implement the California. Or the Coastal Commission's recommendations. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Next speaker is Drake Stone. Your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 4: Over. Thanks for allowing me to speak.
Speaker 0: I don't have a formal speech prepared like some of the other folks. I am a short.
Speaker 4: Term rental operator. I live in.
Speaker 0: Long Beach and I live on the coast. I wholeheartedly.
Speaker 4: Agree with.
Speaker 0: This proposal. For the reasons actually some of the people have stated earlier. This is the Uber and Lyft of the hospitality industry. And just like those companies, what they have done is they have decentralized wealth out of corporate.
Speaker 4: Conglomerates.
Speaker 0: Into the hands of regular people. And now Uber and Lyft is a platform where the average citizen can go and make a.
Speaker 4: Living and provide for.
Speaker 0: Their family. So instead of tens of thousands of jobs, you've got hundreds of thousands of people able to support their families. I'm one of those people.
Speaker 4: I struggled my whole life with a college degree to provide for my family.
Speaker 0: And I've just.
Speaker 4: Been doing it now for three years.
Speaker 0: And now I am able.
Speaker 4: To live here in the.
Speaker 0: City. I don't have any units here, but I'm able to live in a way that I never could before. So people forget that stars.
Speaker 4: Are a business.
Speaker 0: And are jobs. They support local entrepreneurs. We hire local companies. We hire cleaners and and dry cleaners and security people and CPAs. And so I think it's a disingenuous to say that stars are going to take jobs away. That's only from the hotel conglomerates. There are other jobs that are supported and other local small businesses.
Speaker 3: Dean Young. Your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Jean Young. I'm a 30 year resident.
Speaker 4: Of Bixby North, now District five. I would recommend that the City Council accept the Coastal Commission recommendations. Lisa Wise Consulting and.
Speaker 2: Urban planning outfit.
Speaker 4: Who was involved in the four years of public input and outreach. They said that 1200.
Speaker 2: Represented less than 1%, I think it was 0.68%.
Speaker 4: Of housing stock. And as another.
Speaker 2: Speaker mentioned.
Speaker 4: Most of these units.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't be rented anyway. They'd stay vacant because.
Speaker 4: Owners want to.
Speaker 2: Have their family there. They may live in two cities, may use them part time.
Speaker 4: On hotel workers. We pay previous hotel workers very well, perhaps double the minimum wage. People should check out turn over B and B if you want to earn extra income. This is just the new sharing paradigm and.
Speaker 2: The way things are working now. So the ordinance again represents years of public input.
Speaker 4: It establishes standards.
Speaker 2: There are requirements.
Speaker 4: In place for.
Speaker 3: Our last speaker of the night, Jennifer Walton. Your 90 seconds begin now.
Speaker 4: Hi. Thanks for allowing me to speak. I would like to applaud the Coastal Commission's careful research and recommendations. I support these recommendations. I have a right to operate a business within my home. Flat out I have a business license. My staff is registered. I'm a conscientious host for nearly seven years now and a host of families from all over the world who would not come to Long Beach if stars were not offered. My rental is not a party house or a luxury tourist rental. I use my home throughout the year together as my own family. My ACR is not taking any homes off the market. If a hotel worker is looking for my work, they should reach out to the ACR owners and present their resumes. I pay $25 an hour. We're not taking work from anyone. My ACR is one of hundreds not located in the hotel areas downtown, so it doesn't take away any hotel bookings. My ACR brings families to Long Beach who may not be able to afford to come here. Otherwise, these families spend money on the local businesses and flood the city with new tax revenue. In addition, I pay the 30% transient occupancy tax and income tax. This revenue stream is vital for our great city. And other than that, I just want to say I love hosting. I bring business too, to the great city. I've been living here for about 30 years. I love it. I know the city well and I have repeat customers who come from all over the world.
Speaker 2: And I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's my.
Speaker 4: Own business. I am an entrepreneur and nobody will take this from us. We really appreciate all of your support and we work hard to bring wonderful people to our city, and we truly appreciate all the careful research that you have done.
Speaker 3: That concludes public comment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate all the public comment of take it back behind the wheel to the maker of emotion here as Councilmember Price.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you to the staff for your presentation and thank you to all of the speakers. I think the comments were extremely important on the concept that I think we can all agree with here. I don't think there's anybody on the city council who wants to increase the cap. So I want to talk a little bit about that with staff. I was going to make a motion to approve tonight, but with the following amendments. Sorry about that. My boys are home and my dogs are excited. The the the motion that I would like to make tonight and I know the staff touched upon it, but it didn't have enough specificity for me. But I would like city staff to come back and I'm going to ask a couple of questions, but I would like to direct city staff to come back to council when we have hit 700 registrations. To provide an update to Camp Salt and give us an opportunity to modify our existing cap as it relates to areas outside of the coastal zone. Just staff acknowledge that amendment. Is that clear.
Speaker 0: A county member. This is Oscar worthy. That is clear. Just wanted to let you know that in the previous decision, the council had asked us to come back and provide annual monitoring, but we can adjust that to include the 700th as a threshold.
Speaker 2: Yes, because I don't want to get anywhere near that 800, because if if and I understand staff has one interpretation and the folks that spoke tonight have a different interpretation. Let me just make it abundantly clear, I have no interest in going above the 800 cap. We work really hard as a council to get to that 800 cap. We don't want it to be increased. And so if the number of the cap is getting above 800, when we count the coastal zone apportionment, then I want to make sure that the Council has an opportunity to go back and amend. So I just have a couple of questions if you have clarity on that. The question I have right now is how many? How many? First of all, let's talk about enforcement. To me, the number one issue is enforcement. I was just looking at some of the articles because L.A. was referenced. And while I understand the L.A. law was cited, it's very clear from all of the articles and the data that L.A. has been really saddled with a lot of illegal operations. A lot. That's been a problem, too, for many people. So I don't want us to be in that situation. And enforcement is key for me. And we've been waiting for this policy to pass so that we can have enforcement mechanisms in place to be able to ensure quality of life for residents. So can we talk a little bit about that? Absent a policy, what are what is our ability to enforce?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councilmember Price. We are doing enforcement outside the coastal zone today. So we do that through our traditional tools with code enforcement, but with short term rentals because of the ordinance. We also have a vendor host compliance that allows us to identify problem rentals or unregistered rentals. And if they don't come into compliance, they are removed from the hosting platform such as the RPO and Airbnb, the highly effective tool. But unfortunately we don't have that tool in that coastal zone until this council acts. So our intention is to start taking registrations tomorrow. If the council acts this evening, and that would allow us over a six month period to ramp up the enforcement and to be able to hold operators accountable within the coastal zone the same way that we're currently holding them accountable outside the coastal zone.
Speaker 2: Okay. I appreciate that, because I would venture to guess that many of the short term rentals that are desired are in the coastal zone. Does that does the data support that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So that relates to this whole discussion about the cap outside the coastal zone. You know, we've been taking registrations for quite a while and we only have 200 on hosted outside the coastal zone. So there is more than sufficient capacity to meet the 350 that's required in the coastal zone and to preserve the 800 cap. In fact, based on current economic conditions and current uptake, we're going to end up below the 800 cap. We're not going to be exceeding that. I understand that the language is opaque, but what's very clear to me is you the council doesn't want to exceed that 800 cap. And by managing how we take applications and we'll be able to share that and we'll report back to council.
Speaker 2: Okay. So right now we have this is this registration process city wide absent the coastal zone has been open for a while now and we have only 200 registered staffers, is that correct?
Speaker 0: We have 200 open hosted, which is what's capped. There are some others that are hosted, but that's where the the person lives on site. So that's a different category. But as to the ones that count towards the cap, we only have 200, meaning we have a capacity of 600 and we only need to accommodate 350 in the coastal zone.
Speaker 2: Okay. So if we got 350 UNHOSTED permits in the next six months, let's say, plus the 200 that we currently have, we would have 550.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman, your time has expired.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I make you back up, although my colleagues may have some questions I'm going to support with that amendment. So think I'm making the motion with that amendment.
Speaker 0: Are the second on the most. I don't know if it's Second Amendment, but we have a Councilmember Urunga, and then we have Councilmember Sara chewed up. And then please step in this way. Thank you. Senior member El Fosters for conducting this meeting this evening. You know, when this first came to my attention, it was one of those concerns about the commission basically overstepping its authority by requiring the city to accept more. That's true. The bottom line is that I think it's the language that is causing this confusion of the staff report from the commission, because we worked hard as a council to get to this 800 cap. We were we debate it. We. We, we. Pushed back and forth in terms of what was a number that we could come up to that would be acceptable to us and to see. So when this commission and I sit at the coast commission so that is my my head at this is double I hit it twice is that I really felt that the commission staff basically added something in there in their requirements that were far above and beyond what we as a city council voted for. So I was basically ready and I'm still debating this as to whether we should just go ahead and and drop it, send it back to the commission, make the corrections, and then bring it back to the city. So the question would be, I guess, to staff at this point is that if we were to. So did not approve this motion tonight. Giving back to staff to get it back to the commission. And basically start over from square one. How long what would be the timeline or timeframe on doing that? A council member. You're on it. If the council doesn't act on the language that came from the commission and doesn't act on that by the second week of June, our ordinance will be basically null and void in the coastal zone. So we would have to prepare a new ordinance, obtain passage at city council, submit it to the Commission, to the Coastal Commission to go through their staff review, have it scheduled for a hearing at the Coastal Commission, hopefully obtain some consensus there. Then come back to City Council for it to be certified. So that process typically takes 18 months. I can not predict how long it would take in this circumstance. I would only share with the Council that even if we were to go down that road, there may be advantages to adopting what's in front of you tonight and asking staff to request revisions to an adopted policy rather than just throwing out what's in front of you. Because until we have something adopted, we're not able to enforce the rules within the coastal zone. Which leads us to my second point is that if we were to say we are not adopt this motion to make. And we're looking at another maybe knowing that the commission is understaffed right now. So they it'll probably be pushed back even further to two years before this came back to us. What's. Do we have anything in mind here in regards to the. Enforcement of stories. Is there anything in place that we can use in writing a book? Councilman. We still have nuisance tools, so we would be able to individually go after, I guess, the worst of the worst. Not because of there being short term rentals, but because of violations of other, uh, law. But in terms of the enforcement tools that are most effective, being able to remove the listing from the platform, being able to revoke their operating license, we would not have that tool available to us if if we were in the limbo period of not having the adopted certified ordinance. Okay. So. At the end of the day with this motion that we had here is that we basically have a problem with the wording that the commission has given us or that is willing to adopt in the sense that it sounds like with the 800 cap that we have and the cap that we have with that city wide and then the 350 that we have in the coastal zone, the danger is that we may overstep that 800, 800. So as to our cap, we have 1135. Would that would that be something that we were afraid of? I, I, I hear that that they expressed concern of, of many of the speakers. I also hear that it's very important to the Council to maintain that 800 caps. So from the staff standpoint, we administer the program. We have total control of the program outside the coastal zone. We would not exceed the 800 cap because we would manage the licensing of, uh, aspires outside the coastal zone to preserve that cap. So there is no danger based on the numbers of that occurring. But I understand that theoretical concern that if there was a rush of a lot of, uh, short term rentals outside the coastal zone , that it could create that situation. So I think that, that, you know, if we had an adopted ordinance, we could over time work on refining that language. But in order to do. The enforcement that really is necessary today in the coastal zone. And we really need to have something on the books to be working from. And Councilmember Brown got it's very clear from this council when we initially started this process, we had that we had recommended 70 up to over 1700 units CAP and the council discussed it, discussed the balance between housing and hospitality opportunities, and narrowed down that number to 800. And so we're very mindful of that. And as Christopher said, we administer the program and we are also required to come back to you, providing you with updates on that. So staff is very clear on the intent of the council and the language that the Coastal Commission also provided to us.
Speaker 1: Councilman, your time is up.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'll real. Thanks. Next up is council member.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council member. Austin Acting Mayor. So I just wanted to clarify Councilmember Price's amendment. So I just wanted to clarify if you are voting to propose to move forward. But with the amendment that the threshold be it is that the amendment you're you're requesting so that we do have an enforcement of an ordinance in place, but that we keep it to somehow a cap at 700 or a threshold. Exactly. That that staff comes back to us, that 700, so that we know how close we are to the cap and then we can initiate a new policy change that might need to go back to Coastal at that point if we're getting that close. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I think as I do, I want to thank, you know, staffer as well as all the speakers for sharing their concern around this. And I just want to reiterate with what has been shared that while I wasn't here with the how hard fought raising and keeping the cap at 800, I do agree with the decision that was made to keeping it that and I do believe that we do need to have some kind of enforcement mechanism which will allow staff to be able to regulate STR. And I do think that making sure we come back, if we hit that 700 threshold so we can work on the existing language to make sure that we don't go over the 800 cap, which has been, I think for me, a really big concern. So so I supported it with moving it forward with that amendment that we do get a report back at 700 so that we can amend the language even though I didn't second, I don't know if that means that because I didn't hear. Council Member You're wrong a second. It's I don't know if I'm able to vote on the amendment, so if you can clarify that.
Speaker 0: For Porter. Clarification for me, I was going to second, but I wanted to discuss it first. And I think that your amendment for 700 come back. I think it's a good one. And I checked that. So you do. Second, it would be clear. Yes. What I have for the comments that I have queued. Up next, we have both of councilmembers in Dallas.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilmember Armstead. I know this is that. This is. Crazy topic because we've worked so hard to get the 800 max. And I think it's very important that we have very, very clear language going forward, that that's where we want to remain. And, you know, so thank you just for clarifying all that. I think it's very important that we do remain that and that we do have that clarifying language in there. So one of the things that I just want to make sure for for everyone is that. What we're talking about is making sure that our cap remain at 800, including the 350 short term rentals that the Coastal Commission is requesting or recommending in that area. I'm you know, I like the fact that we are low in short term rentals right now, that we have plenty of room to include. So. Just one more time staff is that is that would I'm it is what I'm understanding. Correct.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilmember, that is correct.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to make sure that, you know, and maybe maybe what we do is make sure that that language is anything that we vote on tonight to make sure that it's very, very clear. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Next up, we have Councilmember Price again.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Austin, I just wanted to clarify a few things. So if staff comes back to us when we hit 700 and we're going to hit 700, if we assume that we get 350 in the coastal zone, that we have the 200 outside of the coastal zone that we currently have, plus an additional number to get us to 700. Assuming we get to that, 700 and staff comes back to us. Can council then vote to reduce the number of staffers outside of the coastal zone?
Speaker 0: Councilmember. Go ahead, Christopher. Yeah. So a councilmember at this council always retains the ability to change these regulations outside the coastal zone. So we certainly will come back at 700. I think we'll probably come back before then because we're also doing annual report backs. And I hear everyone's comments that the language is imperfect. It's much easier to refine the language with the Coastal Commission once we have something approved and in place, then then the from scratch process. So what will happen is, you know, depending on time and resources, some action is taken tonight. We would come back at the soonest point that different things happen. So in the unlikely event that we had 700 quickly where we'd be back in front of you in the more likely event we would be back in a year to provide you an update. And we would also have exchange notes with the Coastal Commission staff and perhaps be in front of you with language changes and make things more clear as we implement the program over time. And we could also make any adjustments outside the coastal zone that the council wanted to make.
Speaker 2: Okay. So just just for clarity, council can make a change. If we were to hit 700 real quickly and you brought it back to us, we could make a change. That change could include one. We change the cap for areas that are outside of the coastal zone to lower it. But we could also go back to coastal with language change or modification requests. It's just we can't do that if we don't have a policy in place. Right.
Speaker 0: That is that is correct. So if an action is taken tonight, starting tomorrow, you know, we can always make changes to this ordinance. But the starting point is being able to take some action this evening.
Speaker 2: Okay. So if I could just share with my colleagues why it's important to have something in place, step back. Since we adopted this has not been able to do really anything in the coastal zone. So if there are party houses, if there are we had a shooting at one store. If there are quality of life issues, there's very little that staff can do right now that's in that's consistent with what we all agreed would be reasonable limitations to put on stars, to get them off of the pro of the online profile. So we can't do that right now. Also, neighborhood opt out provisions not even available right now in the coastal zone. So a lot of what's available in the ordinance is not even available right now to the coastal zone and most of the stars in the city, probably over 80% of them are going to be in the coastal zone. So we just need to have some policy in place because it's a little bit of a wild west in the coastal zone right now with stars. So I'd ask staff to I'd ask my council colleagues to trust that staff will bring this back to us when we get close to that cap. And then we can reroute as a council and lower the cap or go back to council or even go back. I mean, coastal, we can even go back to Coastal before then to ask for the language change. As Council Councilman Ranga mentioned, once we adopt the policy, we can go back and ask them to amend the language to make it more clear in terms of what our intentions are. I believe that's what I heard staff say. So with that. Thank you, Councilman Austin.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'll just reiterate, I think the council reserves the right to change policy on any given Tuesday. Council member Urunga. And then we have Council member Alan. I think the customer analysis. I totally agree with the. Analysis that comes with a price brought forward. And that is exactly what I was going to say. What I when I ran out of time is the fact that this whole issue is brought before us here today, at least because Coastal Commission staff wrote a report that was. More confusing that we wanted to have. It does somewhat imply that our 800 s to our cap would be exceeded, and that is not what we would like to see. That's where I would like to see. Just to give you a brief history, I mean, Coastal Commission appointed. Appointed Commission doesn't always agree with staff reports that affect the commission staff. Sometimes they don't get it right and they don't get it exactly right, as the commission would like to see. So we've had in the past opportunities to connect with Commission staff, let them know that we disagree with their staff report and go back and do it again, or renegotiate or do whatever they need to do to ensure that whatever the commission passes is in line with what the commission wants. And that's where I'm at right now, is the fact that I would push that we would go ahead and and adopt this motion tonight with the caveat that staff is going to go back to the commission and have this language corrected or have it clarified that the 800 cap on this 2 hours will not be exceeded. I also accepted the the amendment that Councilmember Sato put forward that once we reach 700, if we start looking at. Amending our emotions in the city so that we can make sure that Iraq will be no no exceeding of the 800 cap or maybe even not exceeding the 50 that we are considering along the coastal zone where we're in good and safe ground right now. We're not even near close to reaching the 800, but of course, that could change. And as a city council, we have the right to amend our our our ordinances and our emotions. And that's where I'm at. So we have to make sure that the language is there, very clear that we are not going to be exceeding our 800 cap citywide and we're not going to be exceeding our cap on the coastal zone. So. I'm good to go now. Thank you. Thank you. So most of the made is seconded. We have council member Cindy Allen.
Speaker 4: Awesome. Thank you. I guess you call your acting acting mayor often. You're doing a great job. So I also want to say thank you to the staff for their hard work on this. And I know there was a lot of work from previous council before my time to get where you guys are at today. So I just want to recognize that. And also I did appreciate a council member your range really giving us, you know, his insight from the Coastal Commission perspective and also for his service on the commission. I think it really helps as we make these decisions. I think that regulating short term rentals throughout the city, including the coastal zone, you know, is important. And so we heard that tonight. I definitely want to make sure that we protect the character of our neighborhood. And also, of course, you know, the jobs at our hotels. I absolutely support, you know, limiting the number of hours on the coastal zone to 350. And I also like Councilwoman Soothing Price's recommendation for, you know, checking at 700. Absolutely. In favor of keeping that cap at 800. There's no need for us to oversaturate our coastal zone or or anywhere else. And then, like my other colleagues have said, you know, monitoring, tracking, tracking those regulations and help us determine the impact of those policies are, are and important. So again, I want to thank the staff for their hard work with them for all of their hard work with the Coastal Commission. Thank you. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll just add a few comments at this point. I want to just say I think this has been a very productive discussion. I think public comment was, you know, obviously we learned a lot from our public on both sides of this issue. I want to clarify that the motion is on the table is to approve with an amendment made by Councilmember Price to have a staff come back to the council. Once we reach 700, start usage kind of trigger to ensure that we don't go over the cap that. Which emotion was.
Speaker 2: That? That was my emotion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now, emotion was seconded by council member Urunga. I do think it's important for us to move something this evening because that enforcement in the coastal zone is, I think, extremely important. That's where the demand for stars are in our city. But I think we do need to be mindful of public comments on the importance of preserving our housing stock. I know the Council have been very committed just to our work over the last several years to enhance and increase our housing stock. And yes, we still have a long way to go in terms of building new housing in the city and in protecting housing stock. And so I think that's that's a that's a core here. And I think our cap, after many years of negotiations and haggling with all of the parties, the platforms we have, I think, settled on an account that makes sense for our city and a policy that makes sense for our city. And I think, again, I'll mention that we reserve the right, you know, three weeks from now, three months from now or a year from now, to come back and modify this policy to make it even better. That's that's part of policy making, improving upon what we we're we're doing here each and every Tuesday night. So with that, Madam Clerk, we've heard from the council, please, of roll call vote.
Speaker 1: District one. I'm district two.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 1: District three by district for.
Speaker 0: My.
Speaker 1: District five. High District six. I District seven.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: District eight.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Motion is carried eight zero.
Speaker 0: It's scripted. So now I think we have to go to a general public comment. Clear.
Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 5.77, related to short-term rentals, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)