Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:01 Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the September 8th, 2026 meeting of the Housing, Planning
0:07 and Development Committee. A few items under agenda this evening. First is approval of
0:12 the minutes of the July 13th, 2026 meeting of the HP&D committee. Can I do it here
0:18 a motion? So moved. And a second. Seconded. Motion passes. Thank you. First up on the
0:30 agenda tonight, communication from Vice President Baker, Councilpersons Bixentine and Evans
0:35 regarding the City of Lakewood's traffic calming program. This was referred to HP&D and the
0:43 Case Advisory Board on July 6th. I think both things we're going to hear tonight are
0:47 updates on things that this committee has been working on over the past months. So
0:51 with that, I believe it will turn it over to Councilman Baker. Sure. Thank
0:55 you, Chair Evans. And the communication speaks for itself in the sense that it's, you know,
1:03 the traffic calming program was started a few years ago by this administration. A lot of,
1:08 but it was also kind of new. Not a lot of communities were doing this. So a lot of what
1:16 was formed was based upon what's inside the brain of Dave Boss, which is a dangerous and
1:22 amazing place to be, I'm sure. And so the intent of this communication was both to lift up some
1:33 of the, you know, accomplishments and good work of the traffic calming program, but also, you
1:38 know, it's a good policy of any organization that every five years to look at something,
1:43 how it's doing, reflect, think about refinements, seek input from the public. This
1:49 is purely an administrative program. Do you want to have some loose codification of it or not?
1:54 What does the public think about it? What are the successes? What are some of the
1:59 challenges from a staff standpoint and the amount of work Mr. Boss is doing? Are there
2:04 ways to make it more efficient? And I am an ex officio member of the case board as well and
2:09 heard Mr. Boss's presentation. So I'm sure he will do that for us and take our input as
2:16 well. So that's all I have to say.
2:18 Great. Thanks, President Baker. And I'll just add as a little background, Council persons,
2:24 Baker, Bixenstein and myself did have a really good meeting with city officials,
2:29 planning department. The mayor was in attendance and public works about this program.
2:34 All of us in council, I think, can agree this is something we hear quite a bit about from
2:38 the community pretty much every single day. So it was a great touch point. I think we had a
2:43 lot of productive conversation there, but looking forward to the presentation this evening.
2:47 So I'll turn it over to Assistant Director Boss.
2:51 Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I've just got a couple of slides.
2:55 I'll, a little bit of background. I'll walk through the process. Hopefully you're
3:00 familiar with the traffic calling process, but for now I'll just hit some of the highlights
3:04 and then kind of some of the numbers of the last couple of years just in terms
3:10 of some metrics of the program and the throughput. And then the last slide is kind of a follow-up
3:15 to the meeting that we had in terms of some of the things that we were planning on making
3:20 changes. And I got one to add from the case meeting last week as well to consider.
3:27 So this is some background on traffic calming. This was a pretty big research project
3:39 when I got here, 2018-2019 timeframe. Not a lot of local or regional cities had traffic
3:48 calming policies at the time. And so a lot of this information, I pulled it in terms
3:54 of research and then also learned from kind of the past and then the efforts on Woodward
3:59 Avenue here in Lakewood as well as, and then I was fortunate enough to lead the
4:05 Marlowe Avenue, which was our project, which became our pilot, where I was able kind of
4:11 to test and refine this whole process over about a two-year period with the residents
4:17 of Marlowe Avenue. And so one of the biggest things driving traffic calming is, obviously
4:24 it's intended to address volume and speed issues on a given, typically a residential
4:30 neighborhood street. So that's one of the big focuses is ours. We don't, the program
4:35 does not focus on major east-west collectors or commercial dominated roads. It is a,
4:41 that's why I call it the neighborhood traffic calming program. It's focused on those
4:45 north-south residential blocks within the city. One of the biggest things with traffic
4:52 calming is it's contextually driven, so it means different things to different
4:56 people depending on where you live. Somebody who lives on Hall with its 18-foot right-of-way
5:03 and the homes that are like, I think the building line on Hall has got to be like
5:07 12 or 15 feet, you're a lot closer to traffic that is in a much narrower street
5:13 and it feels a lot different than say a resident who's on Manor Park, who's
5:17 got a 60-foot, you know, a much larger right-of-way and a 60-foot setback. So
5:26 the cars going the same speed feel much different to those two different blocks. We try to
5:32 respect that and the program did have a prioritization system that takes those things into account,
5:40 but that's one of the discussions. I'll come back to this with one of the recommendations
5:44 from the case committee that I thought was valid in terms of being better in terms
5:49 of that contextually driven process. And then one of the last things is obviously
5:54 this is a, it was designed and it still is, it remains a resident-driven process. And
5:59 so there's three specific touch points through the process that as a street kind
6:05 of matriculates through and that residents start it, residents say they want to do
6:12 something about an issue if it's been identified and then residents are the ones
6:16 that actually approve the plan before it gets implemented. And those are all lessons
6:21 that we learned through Woodward, through the Marlowe pilot process. So when I get
6:27 to that in the next slide. This was mainly for case, for folks, the thresholds themselves,
6:34 hopefully the council members are familiar with it, there's three main thresholds
6:38 that we consider during step two of the process when we collect data and look at
6:44 the speed and the volume data for the street. These are simply an objective basis
6:48 to compare every block that we look at to truly try to define what is a problematic
6:55 block and what is not. Any program where you are trying to make a decision on
7:01 acting or not acting, you have to have some form of objective thresholds that
7:05 drive that so that you can basically just explain and back up your decision
7:10 making, especially in a resident-driven process like this. The volume, 600 average
7:16 daily traffic, that is, it's a nationally driven standard in terms of identifying
7:21 neighborhood scale roads. When you start talking about road classifications,
7:25 usually a neighborhood local road is at 600 average daily traffic or below
7:31 in terms of a standard. So anything above that, that was where I drew the
7:35 line on that, is that if you have higher than kind of that national
7:39 regional classification for a residential road, could be problematic in
7:42 terms of the volume. Eighty-fifth percentile speed of 30 miles an hour was
7:48 another standard that I pulled. That, while it's a little technical, 85th
7:53 percentile is how you derive speed limits. And so 30 miles an hour, when
8:00 you have an 85th percentile, that means that it's just like an
8:04 education 85th percentile in terms of all the volume that are there. Your
8:09 average speed ends up being at or above the limit. And so that's why
8:14 it's, I believe that one's also proven over time to be a good threshold that's
8:19 there. And then the last one was actually a local threshold that we
8:24 derived from the Marlowe pilot program. Through looking at data historically on
8:30 Marlowe, in terms of defining that as a problematic street, working with the
8:34 residents, that 5% of volume at 35 miles an hour or higher was just
8:40 something else that I was looking for, kind of an excessive speed criteria to
8:47 look at. Some street you may have a ton of people traveling just at 30
8:52 miles an hour, and it may not feel like they're speeding. And so you may
8:59 not necessarily qualify in that 85th percentile speed. Other streets, and
9:03 Marlowe was one of them, where you had a smaller number of people doing much
9:07 higher speeds on the block that was impacting the safety in terms of the
9:12 speed and the volume there. And so these three objectives give kind of
9:17 that basis when we look at the data for each block. And to qualify over
9:23 time, a block has to basically meet or exceed two of the three of these. So
9:28 they don't have to meet all three of them, but they have to meet two of them.
9:30 So I'll walk through the process here real quick. So it is a five-step process.
9:38 There are off-ramps as you go through, so not every street goes all the way
9:44 through, but every street does start with a resident nominating the block.
9:48 And so it's not something that we go out looking for streets. These
9:55 streets come to us. Again, that's the first step in that residents
9:58 process. So it's streets nominated. The street has to meet the physical
10:03 qualifications that we've set forward in a policy. And again, this really,
10:07 these things at a thousand foot in length, have a 25 mile an hour speed
10:12 limit, not a cul-de-sac or a dead end or a designated emergency route,
10:15 really focuses the program in on blocks that we can effectively work
10:22 with interventions to slow people down or reduce the volume. A block that is
10:28 less than a thousand feet between control measures, it gets, there's a lot
10:34 of times that putting an intervention in the middle of that block could be
10:40 too impactful. And a lot of times a block, in our experience,
10:43 and I walk through the data collection, a block that's less than a thousand
10:46 feet, I don't believe is ever qualified in terms of our data.
10:50 It just, cars just don't, they don't have the distance to get up going
10:54 as fast as a block, say like Lauderdale, that's over 2500 feet.
11:00 And so that again, it's proven itself over time. We don't get a lot of
11:04 nominations from these blocks, even for the number of people that don't,
11:09 are not aware of the policy or where we're in. So I don't have to explain
11:13 it a whole lot. The biggest one is the emergency routes. I have to explain
11:17 those to folks and that is pretty straightforward in terms of our snow
11:21 band streets and in terms of fire and police. And most of those
11:26 designated emergency routes are our main east-west corridors and some of
11:29 the main north-south streets. So if a street is, you know, if it's
11:34 eligible, we then start data collection. This is the step that
11:40 takes the longest out of all of them. I should mention also if a
11:45 street is nominated and we go into data collection, I notify the
11:49 resident that nominated them and it also goes over to my counterpart in
11:54 the police department. That's the ward, one of the ward officers, neighborhood
11:58 police officers, helps me maintain the radar log with the patrol division and
12:03 so these streets go on the radar log. So as we begin data collection, they
12:09 begin within their available capacity of focused enforcement on the streets
12:13 that are on that radar log. This is kind of the first step of action I guess you
12:20 could say to against the street that's nominated is if it can be solved by
12:25 enforcement, that's the best outcome I think for everybody. And so that's why
12:29 we do start focused enforcement right away. So a lot of times it and those
12:35 streets do stay on the radar log for a long time and it's something that
12:39 they manage as capacity is available. And then the neighborhood officer and I
12:45 also work the data collection. So we split that up. Each block you try to get
12:51 at least three sets of data, different seasons, in school, out of school, to
12:57 get differing conditions so that you get a good kind of a round objective
13:02 picture of the conditions, long-term conditions on that block. Those are
13:08 then once I get those sets they're averaged so that you get a like a clean
13:12 objective look at that street and then they're compared against the
13:15 thresholds. And so if a if a street meets or exceeds two of those three
13:21 thresholds, every resident you basically every resident on that block gets a
13:26 letter from me. If they don't, I basically go back to the the resident
13:33 who nominated it and I also I've gotten the habit of I copy each of the
13:39 council members from the ward that street is on and all the at-large
13:43 members so that and as well as the administrative members so everybody's
13:47 aware of kind of the streets that don't qualify and the ones that do
13:50 qualify and are moving on. And try to explain, give them the data, why the
13:55 street wasn't. If there's something else that we can do, we do that. One of
13:59 the examples is the radar speed signs have become pretty popular and so if
14:04 your street is close to qualifying, typically if your 30 or 85th percentile
14:10 is above 27 miles an hour, so you're kind of getting up there but you're
14:14 not close or you're not you just don't qualify, we typically try to put
14:20 a radar speed sign on there. That benefits the block, it's an
14:23 educational intervention, but it also benefits us, it increases our network
14:29 of signs and data that's out there and so it is something that we'd like to do
14:33 for those blocks. So if the street qualifies, the residents all get those
14:41 letters, they get a electronic survey and they get a hard copy survey and
14:46 they get an explanation of kind of what the program is, what the data was
14:50 collected, and why they're getting a letter, why their street qualified, and
14:54 then what they're being asked to provide. The survey basically asks the
14:59 resident to provide information on what they've observed, on the traffic, on the
15:04 volume, on the speed, what direction is it predominantly from, is there
15:08 specific hours that it's predominantly in, and then ultimately the last and
15:13 final most important question that we highlight is basically do you
15:18 support intervention, do you want to do something about this, and so if we
15:23 get 50% of the households on that block to say they want to do something, 50% or
15:29 more, then they move on to the next step. And that's basically that that
15:35 plan development, I start to work on a traffic calming plan for that block. If
15:40 they don't get 50% for that, I go back to everybody that's on the
15:46 block and again sometimes we will keep them on the focus enforcement list,
15:51 sometimes I will give them a radar speed sign or we'll get one for the
15:55 block, if that's the direction that we go, because there are a lot of open
15:58 comment stuff, I do read all the comments, and so on a lot of blocks if
16:02 they don't get the 50%, there's a lot of comments sometimes that say can
16:06 we just get a radar speed sign or one of the signs that shows your speed.
16:09 Easy, easy solution, but I do communicate that with everybody, and so
16:15 they'll get a letter, an email back both for those blocks. So for step four, so if
16:23 you've if you've gotten 50% or more and I develop a plan, we then schedule a
16:28 block meeting. So I will come out to that block, set up, I know a few of
16:33 you may have attended some of these in the past, I will walk through the
16:38 data again, I'll walk through the process again, and then I typically have
16:42 handouts and a big poster of the block in terms of the interventions that
16:47 we're planning to do. We do predominantly, we go with the rubber speed tables that
16:55 we have, that is our that's our primary intervention. It's easy, they're
17:00 cost-effective, and more importantly our guys can install them
17:06 without any engineering support in terms of plans, designs, or
17:11 alterations to the roadway outside of the installation of the table itself. And
17:17 so that block meeting, I review that plan, where the tables are going, if
17:21 there are, if there's leeway in terms of the installation, we'll talk
17:25 through that, and sometimes we do make adjustments when we're out there. I
17:30 have, in the last year or so, I've tried to bring in, if I can, based on
17:35 the length of the block, two different options in terms of the number of
17:38 tables and where they are. Some blocks you can you can get away with two, some
17:42 you can get away with three. I think Lauderdale started with, it was four or
17:46 three, and so you let the people kind of, from the block meeting, give you
17:50 an indication in which direction they want to go. You kind of coalesce
17:54 around a single option before the end of that meeting. Some blocks you
17:59 just cannot shift where the tables are, and that's all based on block
18:02 characteristics, where the driveways are, and the parameters that we use to
18:06 install those tables, so that they don't interfere with drainage or people
18:10 pulling into their driveways, and so. And then at the end of that block
18:17 meeting, I basically hand out petitions, and so that's one of the
18:22 things that we've found have been easy, and usually there's a couple
18:26 folks that are there that are kind of excited about it, and they're
18:30 the ones that start walking around collecting signatures. I've found that
18:33 to be the most effective means of doing it is, again, having the
18:38 residents drive this process, and then I give them typically up to two
18:45 months, sometimes longer if they need it. I will say that most of the
18:48 time people get signatures within about two to three weeks if they're
18:53 appropriately motivated. Sometimes it takes a little bit longer. We have
18:58 never had a block get to the block meeting and not get 60 percent of
19:02 the households to sign up for support. Typically, if you get to that point,
19:06 you're going to get to installation, but that is the second gate, and so.
19:11 And that's an important gate, again, from a resident-driven process,
19:15 is that they have to approve it, and my experience, at least the lesson
19:19 I learned from the Woodward plan, is that 50 percent is not a good
19:22 enough. 51 percent is not a good number when you're going to install
19:25 something, and so we went to 60 percent, just as kind of a
19:30 majority, as a marker for a majority, and so we do require 60 percent
19:36 or more of block-households to approve the plan to move on the
19:40 installation. Once they approve it, we move on to procurement and then
19:46 scheduling the installation. If a block were to not get 60 percent of
19:52 block-households to support it, what I would do is I would probably
19:58 schedule another block meeting with them and maybe talk through different
20:02 options or try to highlight what the main issues are that's keeping the
20:07 block from getting there. It's not just a done deal. We would try to
20:12 get them through to success. Even if success means no tables,
20:17 just a radar speed sign, but to try to get somewhere where we make
20:22 the folks as happy as we can, just to address the problem that started
20:27 the whole process. So that's kind of the general process through the steps. Just to
20:32 wrap up here, in terms of numbers, we worked our way through 112 nominations
20:38 over the last couple years that started in 2020. You can kind of see the
20:42 fits and starts of numbers. Generally in 2020 and 2021, like the city kind
20:49 of got it out of its system, like everybody that thought that their block
20:52 had a problem all nominated their streets. It took us basically until about
20:57 2023-2024 to work through all those numbers, and then we started
21:03 getting more renominations and, as word spread, more nominations, and now we
21:09 have a lot of nominations. In fact, we have 44 that are currently under
21:14 study right now, and we've processed 68 blocks since June of 2020. 22 of those
21:23 blocks, so the 22 of the 68, have had qualifying conditions, and only nine of
21:28 those have gotten all the way through the block meeting and table
21:34 installation. And like I said, I mentioned before, if 80% and we got to
21:40 a block meeting, they got to 60 and they got beyond. We've never had a
21:43 block fail to get 60%. The 22 with qualifying traffic conditions, we just
21:49 had a number of blocks that, in the surveys, failed to get enough
21:54 support, enough folks to say that they wanted to do something about it.
21:58 Most of those blocks ended up getting a radar speed sign. You can see we
22:01 have 37 signs that are currently installed out there, and I got 13 that
22:05 are waiting to go up, and that's just a process that I work with
22:09 Public Works and the sign shop as they kind of rotate through all their
22:12 different work schedules and duties to get those things up. But you can see
22:19 the renominations in the process. We have been getting them, you know, more
22:22 renominations. I do not, there's no strict intent in terms of regulating
22:29 renominations. If someone wants to renominate their block after they
22:32 don't qualify, I don't have an issue with it. I just add them to the
22:36 list, and so that is something that I have seen other cities that have put
22:41 restrictions on renominations, like you have to wait, you know, a year, two years
22:45 or whatever. I just felt as slow as our process works in terms of data
22:50 collection, putting somebody at the end of the list is basically like
22:53 restricting them for two, three years, unfortunately. But that's kind
22:58 of the numbers of where we're at right now. What we discussed in the
23:04 earlier meeting and what I plan to do right now is we are going to
23:09 double our data collection capacity, talked briefly with, with Lieutenant
23:13 Dwtalker in the police department, and I'm going to sit down. I want to meet
23:16 with all the neighborhood officers and talk through kind of how I work
23:20 right now with author Schmitz and how we could do that with all four of
23:23 them to have four of the black cat radars going up at any given time.
23:28 I think that'll help a lot. And also turning it over to the officers to
23:32 do it right now. I do one and Schmitz does the other one. And I can
23:35 tell you that he's out and about. I am not. And it's harder for me to
23:39 change the radar than it is for him. And so having them.. I. I.
24:05 Reinforce what was on the website. And so it did have some
24:10 blocks, but I definitely could use his expertise and a better product
24:15 to get information out on the program. And then the last thing that
24:19 I'll mention is from the case meeting, one of the recommendations
24:23 that I need to work through a little bit more that I thought was
24:27 was that to make it more of a context driven process is that it is
24:32 possible to take those thresholds, especially the 85th percentile speed
24:38 threshold. And you can design that into a span of 85th percentilestalks based on the width, those priority metrics that I
24:48 developed for the program. So the width of the right of way,
24:51 the width of the tree lawn, the setbacks of the homes. If you took
24:55 the average of the of which I have of Lakewood and where that kind of
25:25 where a car going 20 does feel like it's going 50 could kind of get
25:30 credit for that. And so but but you have to apply the inverse. That
25:35 as well for some streets. And so there's there's lots of ways to do
25:39 that. But that is that that's the final recommendation that I'm still
25:43 working through. So with that, Mr. Chair, hopefully I didn't didn't take too
25:46 much time, but I appreciate the time to explain the program. No,
25:50 that's that's fantastic. Thank you, Assistant Director Boss. I think it's
25:53 always good for us to get an update or just to kind of refamiliarize
25:57 ourselves with this program for people who might be watching this
26:01 from home. You know, the traffic calming is not arbitrary. It's
26:04 data driven. And it takes an awful lot of.
26:22 Before I turn it over to my colleagues for comments on love, the
26:25 the next steps here, I think simply quickening up the process is
26:29 going to be a boon and a good thing to hear for a lot of our
26:33 residents who one of their frustrations is it just takes a
26:36 long time. So with more of the a little more efficiency and more
26:40 units, that's fantastic. I really love the last piece about case
26:44 about building in this other layer of data, where there where
26:47 there's deviations because I, I totally agree that like there are
26:51 streets that are they're very different physically, and that can
26:54 have a huge impact. So I'm really glad to see you're working
26:57 on that. So thank you for your efforts on that. And with that,
27:01 I'll turn it over to my colleagues on the committee first
27:03 and then anybody else who'd like to comments. So also persons
27:14 Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the administration for being here.
27:17 And we're also going to talk about a different we've got
27:20 another item on the agenda to write tonight. Okay, so I'll
27:23 try to be fast. So thanks, boss for doing such careful and
27:28 diligent work over the years. Just for context, the woodward
27:32 project was something I started with mere summers way back
27:36 when as as a word to counsel person. And it was growing
27:41 pains kind of a process and experience. Now, chicanes are
27:45 different than speed tables, and they're perceived as
27:50 exotic and strange. And at the time, ugly and concrete, because
27:55 they were new and concrete of the chief Fairbanks can flash
28:00 back to some of that. They work. But in terms of I'm
28:09 kind of of two minds, I think you're not incorrect to err on the
28:12 cautious side. But I don't think cutting and pasting the
28:16 woodward experience with chicanes is necessarily the
28:21 standard that we should have for speed tables, especially this
28:24 many years later, it seems that we've got is it really
28:27 only eight or nine streets that they've got speed tables,
28:30 right? Not where is that including also the chicanes
28:34 doesn't include what word Okay, so that's starting to
28:36 become a more and more broadly experienced feature of
28:41 Lakewood streets. And maybe that's why you're getting
28:43 more applications and adoptions. I also the other
28:47 thing is the standards, I think the conversation that we
28:49 have is if we could build upon the prudent methodology that
28:55 you've got, and I heard you loud and clear that the speed
28:58 tables can be installed without a lot of engineering, time
29:02 and headache. So that's all great. But what standard are
29:07 we using? And so the the 85% is defining reality from the
29:15 ODOT on down perspective, what I'm always trying to do is be
29:19 responsive to residents who are looking for safety and the
29:24 perception of safety and the perception of a residential
29:27 character in their neighborhood. And they'll experience
29:31 changing traffic patterns when there's detours from road
29:34 projects, etc. So that certainly is taking objective
29:40 data and putting a more local neighborhood definition of what
29:44 the standards should be on that data. But but as you've
29:49 heard me over the years, make the argument for I think we
29:52 should make it a little easier and shade our standards
29:56 towards that perspective. Like Mr. Evans, I think that's a
30:01 great innovation on taking the hall example of a narrower
30:07 street, there could be a curve or a parameter that
30:10 acknowledges the narrower street. I'm not sure I would
30:13 make it more difficult to attain on a wider street
30:16 because wider streets invite more speed, right? So anyway,
30:20 you know, you're certainly super qualified to comb through
30:24 these, these details. But I would just, I think what what I
30:28 and my colleagues are experiencing constantly is, hey,
30:31 this is a problem. Can we respond? Well, I can keep
30:34 calling the police, and they'll respond, but they can't
30:37 be there 24 7365. And former word to neighborhood officer
30:41 says I show up in a big white shark, the people slow down
30:45 for a second, and then they speed as soon as they get
30:47 around the corner. So that's only so good either that the
30:49 road design is really our main tool, and I'd love to
30:53 see it deployed more. I know the case board had allocated
30:57 to it from City Council, a certain tranche of funds for
31:01 traffic calming outside of the process you just laid out,
31:05 I'm guessing that hasn't moved forward yet. Maybe that
31:08 could be a source of funds to expand the tool sets you
31:12 just described, because I think that would be a good
31:14 imprudent way to kind of have the best of both worlds.
31:23 Thank you. And Assistant Director Ross, we appreciate
31:26 your time. I don't just put together presentation and
31:28 come in, you know, on top of all the data collection
31:30 you're doing appreciate all that work. Kind of the way I
31:35 was thinking about this was was a little bit more from
31:37 like a high level policy priority position from
31:41 Council and the administration. And so it's like we
31:46 have some policies in the city that are approved by
31:48 resolution that cannot be changed unless they are. So
31:52 they're basically Council level policies the way it is
31:55 the way I describe them. So there's administrative
31:57 administration level policies that administration can
31:59 change and update based upon the wins or the executive
32:03 right. And there's some policies we have that our
32:07 council needs to approve if they change. And then
32:10 there's the lake codified ordinances. So we kind of
32:12 have like three levels of how we can implement policy
32:16 at the city of Lakewood. I kind of am interested in
32:21 maybe making this a county level policy. So it allows a
32:24 little bit more flexibility is not necessarily in the
32:26 code. But we have a little bit more of an ability to
32:29 shape what it looks like. And the one thing that I'm
32:33 I've constantly struggled with is and there was
32:37 public comment in case about it as well and case is
32:39 going to consider this further. So they may have
32:41 a more recommendation back up to us. But if if a
32:45 street is objectively meeting standards and we don't
32:50 something what does that say. Right. I mean that's
32:53 a policy decision right that we're making. The street
32:57 has all three levels of need right or a problem.
33:02 But there's nothing going to place. Now is that
33:04 because it's more transient population and they're
33:07 maybe not as organized to you know so their
33:10 renters. And so but don't don't they deserve
33:13 calling streets as well. And so I think this is
33:16 something that I'd like to explore and understand
33:18 better and understanding that like we're at the
33:20 forefront and we have way more citizens engagement
33:22 than for example the city of Cleveland does. City
33:24 Cleveland decides they want to do traffic on
33:27 Their asphalt crew shows up and just puts it there
33:29 right. Really no public involvement or public
33:31 engagement. I'm not saying we do that. Right. I
33:34 don't think that's the right. But I think we
33:35 may be able to move towards the other end and
33:37 then for example if you have two of the three
33:39 metrics perhaps that's when it's a 60 percent
33:43 voter 70 percent vote because there are some
33:45 streets that really want it that have some
33:49 problem but not meet the threshold of where
33:52 we're at. And so those are kind of the
33:54 policy implementation issues that I'm interested
33:58 in working on. And I I think an interesting my
34:02 colleagues in making this a council level policy
34:06 that is set for review every five years and
34:08 that we know be changed materially unless it
34:12 comes back before council but interested in
34:14 everyone's thoughts on that.
34:16 I'll weigh in before quickly before going to
34:20 other council persons. I agree.
34:24 I think this is something that council should
34:25 take up on a policy basis. I think right now
34:30 it's probably not the I'd love to see what
34:33 assistant director boss comes up with with
34:34 the last point for the new methodology how
34:38 that plays into that. And as well as if
34:40 case has any further feedback on how this
34:43 could look and then take it up at that
34:45 point to see where that policy would lead.
34:48 Any other comments from other colleagues.
34:52 Thank you chair and I'll be quick. I know
34:53 we need to move on here. Thank you. Thank
34:54 you very much vice president assistant
34:56 director boss for all your terrific work
34:58 and for this presentation. I'll be sure
35:00 to share it with constituents. And I do
35:03 want to point out my street was one of
35:05 the ones in that in that lot you had in
35:09 twenty twenty one. And I will say that a
35:11 radar sign is a pretty nice consolation
35:13 prize. It's it's not perfect but it
35:15 certainly has been effective. So I
35:18 appreciate the emphasis on that. I also
35:21 appreciate the case recommendation
35:24 regarding context. You know I understand
35:26 this needs to be an object a process
35:30 that's driven by objective metrics. But
35:33 context does matter. And I'll give you
35:35 one example that I recently heard
35:37 about. And I met with some residents
35:39 on Alameda and I mistakenly said oh
35:41 you have this your unique street that
35:43 has this median. And so you have this
35:45 natural traffic calming that must be
35:47 really nice. And it turned out I was
35:49 100 percent wrong. And instead because
35:52 there's no risk of running in to head
35:56 on traffic the opposite direction. The
35:58 residents there contend people actually
35:59 go faster. And I realize that's unique
36:02 street street. But the point is there's
36:04 a lot of contextual considerations
36:08 throughout the city. And so I appreciate
36:11 when we can look at context more such
36:15 as the case recommendation. And I also
36:18 support what Vice President Baker is
36:20 saying about making this a council
36:23 policy that's reviewed every five years.
36:26 So thanks again. Any other comments.
36:32 President Keppel. Thank you. And thank
36:35 you Assistant Director Boss for the
36:37 presentation always informative. I think
36:40 it's a thing about this too is this
36:43 has been and I also just want to
36:45 express my appreciation for all of the
36:47 staff who have been involved with
36:49 collecting this data and working on the
36:50 program. You know I think to go to
36:54 Councilman Bullock's point when some of
36:56 this started at the public sentiment
37:00 may have been more on the side of I
37:04 don't want interventions on my street
37:06 and therefore there was you know
37:09 and that took a lot of work. I
37:10 remember former Council President nên
37:14 talking a lot about this traffic
37:15 calming and working to get in place
37:16 to get a program in place that sort
37:18 of balanced the safety needs with the
37:20 public input process. And you know now
37:24 that we've had a sort of sample set
37:26 of years of working on this it it's
37:29 good to relook at it and as well as
37:32 I think the public sentiment has
37:34 shifted. We talked about this in
37:37 zoning the other day about at one
37:39 time the public sentiment was very
37:41 very concerned about tattoo parlors
37:43 and liquid and now I think probably
37:45 less concerned about tattoo parlors
37:48 and liquid. And so the same thing is
37:51 if the public sentiment what we hear
37:52 what I hear all the time from
37:54 residents that pretty much every
37:56 everywhere I go is there's too much
37:58 speeding particularly coming out of
38:00 the pandemic. So I feel like that
38:04 shifting towards able to be
38:08 proactive without as much burden on
38:10 our staff would be a positive. So
38:14 I'd be interested to Vice President
38:17 Baker's point of looking at that way
38:20 with the purpose of trying to respond
38:23 to the public need and hopefully
38:26 reduce some of the stuff. Any other
38:31 comments from the board before we
38:33 move on. So again we'll take no
38:35 action on this item tonight but
38:37 I'm looking forward to hearing more
38:38 from Assistant Director Boss on the
38:41 last point. And also if a case has
38:44 additional feedback so that we can
38:46 I'm happy to take this up in
38:47 committee as soon as we have more
38:50 things to discuss that we can move
38:51 towards that policy based decision.
38:54 There are a couple of people who
38:55 stepped in. Is anybody here to talk
38:57 just about this specific item
38:58 which is neighborhood traffic
38:59 coming. Great. With that we'll
39:01 move on to the next item on the
39:03 agenda. Communication from
39:04 Councilmember Bullock resuming
39:06 deliberations on proposed rules
39:07 for liquid property seeking to
39:09 operate short term rentals. Again
39:11 this one is an update. I know
39:12 Councilman Bullock's been working
39:14 has made some progress working with
39:16 folks at City Hall over the past
39:18 couple of months. So just
39:19 opportunity to have a quick
39:21 conversation about that and an
39:22 update. So I'll turn it over to
39:24 Councilman Bullock. Hi everyone.
39:28 Thank you Mr. Chair for the
39:30 opportunity. I think I mean I
39:33 can I can answer questions. So
39:34 we're not entertaining tonight a
39:36 motion to amend or or refer out
39:40 the legislation. We're just
39:41 envisioning this as an update.
39:42 It's an update. But it's my
39:44 understanding that you and
39:45 Councilman Baker will be working
39:47 on drafting this legislation
39:49 together since that so that's a
39:50 majority of this committee. I
39:52 will make a motion to discharge
39:53 so that we can we can do that
39:54 without being burdened in the
39:56 committee and then we'll take
39:56 it up as soon as the new
39:58 legislation is ready to be
40:00 talked through. OK. I'm
40:03 certainly flexible and I don't
40:04 know that he and I have
40:05 communicated about that at all
40:07 which is good since we
40:08 shouldn't outside of a meeting.
40:11 So you know I'm receptive to
40:13 that. I mean what we've had
40:14 the opportunity what I've had
40:15 the opportunity to do is talk
40:17 to many but not all
40:20 administration so I can share
40:22 or recap what I've had the
40:24 chance to discuss with them.
40:26 I'm actually looking at the
40:27 finance department has
40:28 corresponded with me a little
40:30 bit about the status of bed
40:31 taxes and what we may or may
40:33 not collect and I have to
40:35 circle back to them and
40:36 really learn properly what the
40:38 finance department's
40:40 understanding of the status
40:42 quo is. You know what we do
40:43 today with no legal change
40:47 about financial collections
40:48 and you know that might
40:49 affect short term rentals.
40:52 But you know I think I think
40:56 that the spirit of this is
40:57 that we're trying to engage
40:59 collegially with with all the
41:00 department directors in the
41:02 mayor's office in the
41:03 administration and then when
41:05 we're ready we can make any
41:08 revisions if if we like or
41:10 keep keep what we have and
41:13 then and then consider it.
41:14 So I guess I'm happy to
41:16 answer questions from
41:17 colleagues or recap.
41:19 You know I've had a chance
41:20 to talk to fire police
41:22 building apartment and then
41:35 we've we've done we've done
41:37 some conversations with a
41:39 peer municipality on the
41:40 side. We've done some
41:41 research also heard that
41:44 there's the potential for
41:46 our our software in the
41:47 building department to get a
41:49 module that makes tracking
41:50 a bit easier and less
41:51 expensive. But absent there
41:54 is a thirty five thousand
41:55 dollar fee that Granicus may
41:59 charge us to track all of
42:01 this. So we've been doing
42:04 our due diligence is the
42:10 Great thanks. No I guess what
42:11 I'm most interested in is
42:12 what if what the if quickly
42:15 any takeaways from your
42:16 meetings with fire and the
42:18 building department because I
42:19 think those are the things
42:20 that we haven't had a
42:20 chance to hear in thistalk
42:22 committee to this point
42:23 because those are those
42:23 are happening and since we
42:24 have those folks here.
42:26 Yeah so so to quickly summarize
42:30 what I recall and then of
42:31 course tap them is fire
42:34 fire department has they'll
42:37 have a fire safety inspection
42:40 responsibility that they may
42:41 already be implementing and
42:45 hearing to there may be
42:47 some additional signposting
42:50 training details to confirm
42:54 that the property owner is
42:56 actually really truly incompliance given
42:59 the fact that there's
43:00 anticipated high rotation of
43:02 tenants in the short-term
43:04 rental as opposed to long-term
43:05 rental. But that's that's
43:08 largely consistent. The
43:09 police perspective is that
43:11 the chronic nuisance
43:12 ordinance and other safety
43:14 measures already on the
43:16 books give them the
43:17 authority needed to manage
43:19 the persons at or coming or
43:25 going to and from the
43:27 property. So presumably they
43:31 could they could have the
43:32 authority already building
43:34 apartment. I think you
43:35 know Chris the through line
43:37 is that the building code
43:39 is designed to address
43:40 structures not the people
43:42 inside the structures. As we
43:44 think about this there's
43:45 there's a couple different
43:47 tools that the city may apply
43:50 financial public safety
43:52 building code fire code and
43:54 then just the public policy
43:56 question of affordable
43:57 neighborhoods and the impact
44:00 of a commercial operation on
44:01 a residential character of a
44:02 neighborhood. But this
44:04 really does span a lot of
44:10 Great thanks. So with that
44:12 I'll ask Chief Fairbanks
44:14 or Commissioner Parmelee
44:18 anybody planning it as well
44:20 any comments right now
44:22 about where we're heading
44:23 with you know looking at
44:26 ordinance. I'll just make
44:31 a couple quick comments
44:32 Mr. Chair members of the
44:33 board. The communications
44:36 that came out regarding
44:39 you know the registration of
44:40 these short term rentals
44:46 registration already written
44:49 into codified in 1306 43
44:52 where the housing licenses
44:56 requirement of a local
44:57 agent again was in 1306 44
45:01 required inspections live
45:03 in 1306 49. So all of
45:06 that lives under the
45:08 current housing license
45:12 ordinance group and I'm
45:19 in my probe short term
45:21 anti short term. We've all
45:22 stayed in them. They can be
45:27 good. They can be bad. But
45:29 what I've told Councilman
45:31 Bullock you know 100 times
45:34 over is it's not these
45:37 aren't structure issues we're
45:39 dealing with. I mean these
45:40 are these are people. These
45:42 are people issues. These
45:43 are nuisance issues with the
45:44 folks within the dwelling
45:45 units. I have worked with
45:48 citizens serve over the
45:49 past couple weeks. I just
45:50 got another report they gave
45:52 me that identified 48
45:55 additional short term
45:57 rentals. I went through
45:59 them today. There is
46:01 probably about 15 percent
46:03 of those that were flagged
46:05 because they didn't select
46:06 the short term rental box
46:08 inside the housing license
46:09 application. So I went in
46:12 edited the application
46:14 identified them as a short
46:15 term rental and then
46:16 within that report they
46:18 run. I have a hyperlink
46:20 that goes to VRBO Airbnb.
46:23 So I saved that link to
46:24 the housing license case
46:26 in case there is some
46:26 argument that comes up.
46:29 There was a handful of
46:30 them that that weren't
46:31 identified that we're
46:33 working on sending some
46:34 correction notices out to
46:35 now you know just because
46:37 they're not in compliance
46:40 registration that is the
46:42 housing license and that's
46:43 the only kind of teeth we
46:45 have at this point in time.
46:47 But talking about the
46:49 housing license and how
46:50 these things are going to
46:51 register 306 43 B. If I
46:58 own a two family and its
46:59 owner occupied decide I
47:01 want to run out one
47:02 unit Airbnb one unit.
47:03 I'm I'm exempt from the
47:06 requirement and you know
47:09 we all know what's going
47:10 on in the world economy
47:11 today but you know there's
47:13 going to be some owner
47:14 occupied folks that might
47:16 be carving out a little
47:17 bit of a living that you
47:18 know I think we should be
47:19 sensitive to when we're
47:20 looking at ordinance
47:24 classification of bed and
47:25 breakfast and you know we
47:27 can we can all work with
47:28 each other but there's
47:31 already built in local
47:32 provisions for rental
47:34 property and we just have
47:35 to figure out what side of
47:37 the aisle this lives on
47:39 right like that what gives
47:41 me heartburn and I know
47:42 the fire department I
47:43 won't speak to the you
47:45 know I'm I'm not the
47:47 voice of everybody right
47:48 now but you know one and
47:49 two family home it's
47:54 properties that are
47:55 causing issues or the
47:56 behavior inside the
47:57 properties it's the
47:58 minority of them that the
48:00 handful that are the
48:01 police calls my concern
48:04 is on the commercial
48:05 corridors be at Detroit
48:07 Marlowe we have a 15 20
48:12 building turning into an
48:14 Airbnb but that's a
48:15 hotel by definition that's
48:17 transient use those are
48:20 the ones that are going
48:21 to cause issues late night
48:22 response calls for PD and
48:24 fire so as a whole you
48:27 know we all need there
48:30 substantial change but
48:34 you know I try to really
48:36 wear my common sense had
48:37 approach when I look at
48:38 this kind of stuff so
48:42 communication with you
48:44 know members of the
48:46 committee committee
48:48 president folks within city
48:52 hall outside departments
48:57 nobody's paying four or
49:02 these these properties
49:03 are pretty well kept
49:05 and it's a behavioral
49:06 issue so that's all I
49:20 I'm going to let the
49:21 fire marshal speak to
49:23 just some internal ideas
49:27 Councilman Bullock and
49:29 Commissioner Commissioner
49:30 Parmelee on you know
49:33 safety for folks that
49:36 decide to stay in one of
49:37 these rental properties
49:40 if if if we can improve
49:42 the overall safety of
49:45 that property we can
49:46 improve the safety of
49:48 people that are staying
49:49 there the big thing that
49:52 looking at is that it
49:53 is it's just like going
49:58 unfamiliar setting for the
50:00 folks that are staying
50:01 there so to for us to
50:04 eliminate barriers is
50:07 improve that safety for
50:09 people that are staying
50:10 there the fire marshal
50:11 has worked up just a
50:13 checklist of some items
50:15 that we can address
50:17 within our within our
50:19 scope just to make sure
50:21 that we can eliminate any
50:22 of those barriers to
50:24 improve the safety and
50:25 I will just let him
50:26 speak to a few of those
50:28 that we've brainstormed
50:30 and collaborated on
50:31 internally thanks chief
50:37 yeah so as as chief was
50:39 saying you know when we
50:41 start to look at these
50:42 and consider all of the
50:44 inspections that we're
50:45 doing we have a lot of
50:46 commercial properties a
50:47 lot a lot of multifamily
50:49 apartment buildings that
50:50 we're out inspecting and
50:51 these don't seem to be
50:55 I know we've gotten a
50:55 few calls from some
50:56 residents about some
50:57 concerns but generally my
50:59 assumption is that these
51:00 are put together pretty
51:02 well there's just a
51:03 few items that we would
51:04 like to see them here
51:06 too just as we would
51:07 any other apartment
51:08 building owner or any
51:09 other regular rental
51:11 that that someone may
51:14 focuses on making sure
51:16 clear we know where
51:18 understanding that these
51:19 are transient guests
51:20 they're not familiar
51:21 with these buildings
51:22 they don't know exactly
51:23 where everything's at
51:25 sure that it's easy
51:27 something happens so we
51:28 want to make sure that
51:29 our exits are are clear
51:31 but we also a lot of
51:33 the concerns that we
51:34 have from residents
51:36 multi-family you know
51:39 structures is securing
51:42 the units from other
51:44 guests and what you
51:45 start to see is they
51:46 secure them with double
51:48 deadbolt so basically
51:49 you would need a key
51:50 on both sides to unlock
51:52 the door that isn't
51:55 understand why they're
51:56 doing it they're trying
51:56 to make it secure so
51:58 guests can get to the
51:59 hallways without having
52:00 to interfere with other
52:01 guests still is a big
52:05 then when you start
52:06 to look at anything
52:06 else smoke detectors
52:08 we want them on every
52:09 and every room I think
52:10 when you're talking
52:11 about rentals and having
52:12 people stay in places
52:13 that they don't normally
52:14 stay we want to make
52:15 sure we're max protected
52:17 so I don't want just
52:19 I'd like to see one
52:21 sleeping quarter in
52:22 the main area things
52:23 of that nature also want
52:25 to consider the use
52:26 of carbon monoxide a
52:27 lot of times now when
52:28 you buy these smoke
52:29 detectors combination
52:30 smoke detectors 10 year
52:32 lithium ion batteries
52:34 pretty easy for these
52:35 owners to install them
52:37 and really not have to
52:38 to revisit that for
52:42 Fire extinguishers are
52:43 also important these
52:44 are messages we share
52:45 with people at a block
52:46 party you know fire
52:48 prevention weeks coming
52:49 up we talk about a lot
52:50 with the kids and even
52:52 the parents that are
52:55 extinguishers are great
52:57 Emergency if you're
52:58 comfortable enough using
52:59 them so these are great
53:01 to put in the kitchen
53:02 should someone have an
53:03 accident they'd be able
53:04 to have quick action
53:05 but also still be able
53:07 to get out if they don't
53:08 feel comfortable and
53:10 then we're just backing
53:11 up some of the things
53:12 we already do with open
53:13 burning having these
53:14 short term rentals.
53:16 We already know that
53:17 people that live here
53:18 are often doing open
53:20 burning and generally
53:21 not a problem until
53:24 situations it would be
53:25 advised that it might
53:26 not be a good idea to
53:29 pit on the premises
53:31 as well as making sure
53:34 charcoal grills really
53:35 no grills at all on
53:37 porches decks things
53:38 like that so we just
53:39 want to make sure that
53:41 we again are able to
53:43 help control some of
53:44 the behaviors that the
53:45 structures are already
53:46 in good standing most
53:48 We just want to make
53:53 comfortable that they
53:56 exiting the building
53:57 should they need to
53:59 and that they don't
53:59 feel trapped which is
54:00 the phone calls that
54:01 we typically would get
54:03 and then making sure
54:04 that they're protected
54:05 with smoke detectors
54:06 and fire extinguishers
54:08 things that we look for
54:11 things that we look for
54:14 are in the adoption
54:19 So we're really doing
54:21 a lot of this already.
54:22 It's just how can we
54:23 apply this to these
54:27 realistic capabilities
54:30 of putting these on
54:32 and following up with them.
54:34 that would look like.
54:37 that we're inspecting
54:38 annually or at least
54:41 So there's a lot to do
54:45 the application process
54:47 and you know once they
54:48 get their occupancies
54:49 if that's something
54:54 or get your license.
54:55 We need to check off
54:57 and that would be this
55:02 So that's pretty much
55:05 I really appreciate
55:08 members of the committee
55:09 if there's any follow up.
55:10 Vice President Baker.
55:16 Commissioner Parmelee.
55:17 I would really like
55:19 from committee tonight
55:21 so that Councilman Bullock
55:22 and I can work on it
55:23 with the administration.
55:23 I mean I'm hearing that
55:27 so if we pass the ordinance
55:30 we basically outlaw
55:31 short��term rentals
55:32 and because there's no
55:34 bed and breakfast in the city
55:35 and no one's ever gone
55:36 through the process.
55:37 We want to have more
55:39 of a heavily regulated approach.
55:40 you can follow the continuum
55:42 have no regulations
55:43 or heavily regulated
55:44 or outlaw it right.
55:46 What I'm hearing is that
55:48 they're not entirely different
55:50 from regular rentals
55:51 but they require more care
55:53 and attention from city staff.
55:56 400 units in our city
55:58 that are not inhabited
55:59 by residents that are paying
56:00 income taxes that those taxes
56:02 then benefit everything
56:04 the city does for them.
56:06 Police response time
56:07 trash pickup road plowing
56:12 that those people essentially
56:14 and the owner so that
56:15 you distinguish the behavior
56:17 within the unit from structure.
56:21 But if there are owners
56:22 that are constantly having
56:24 people that have behavior issues
56:25 in the unit there has
56:27 to hold those owners accountable.
56:29 So I think I think I'm leaning
56:31 more towards a heavily
56:33 because I do think that
56:35 the modern marketplace
56:36 of of kind of options to stay.
56:39 I think it would maybe not be
56:40 the best thing for Lakewood
56:41 to totally banish them
56:43 but I think we need a heavily
56:44 regulated way to handle them.
56:46 And to do that there needs
56:47 to be some fee structure
56:48 associated with the pay
56:50 for the enforcement
56:51 of those regulations
56:51 whether that's the fire
56:52 department building department
56:55 So I'd like to get this
56:56 discharge from committee.
56:58 City of Cleveland doesn't always
56:59 have the best models.
57:00 I think their model is
57:01 a decent place to start.
57:02 Last time we talked about it.
57:04 They basically institute bed tax.
57:06 There's there's kind of like
57:07 a saturation requirement per street.
57:09 There's really defined
57:10 you know kind of ingress egress
57:12 maps that have to be posted
57:13 in every dwelling unit.
57:15 marshal birth perspective
57:17 but there is no doubt
57:18 that these units require
57:20 more city attention than regular
57:24 So they need enhanced regulation
57:26 and they need some fee structure
57:28 to pay לfor those enhanced
57:29 That's my perspective.
57:30 I'd like to discharge
57:31 this tonight so that we can
57:32 continue to work on it.
57:34 Thanks Councilman Bullock.
57:35 Yeah yeah I'll be receptive
57:40 the committee wants to make.
57:42 To add to what Councilman
57:46 there is one other.
57:47 So what I gather is that the
57:49 there's been administrative
57:50 interpretation of this new
57:53 business practice that short-term
57:55 rentals are a subcategory rental
57:57 and that they're compliant
57:58 with our zoning code.
58:00 And so we've had this
58:02 There's the other argument
58:04 though that this is a new
58:05 category that it's a commercial
58:08 business a full-time commercial
58:09 business conducted in
58:11 residentially zoned
58:12 neighborhoods and our zoning
58:14 code says you can't do that.
58:17 And so we've never made
58:18 an explicit decision
58:20 as a city council or even
58:22 I don't know that the mayor
58:23 has ever made an explicit
58:24 We've just kind of found
58:26 ourselves with this practice
58:28 spreading and as evidence
58:30 that this is a new category
58:32 and not just a regular rental
58:34 or is that if there's
58:37 demand for a hotel then
58:38 the hotel would show up
58:40 in one of our commercial
58:42 We've got the days in right
58:43 now and what's the other one
58:48 So outside of those we
58:50 haven't had a proper hotel
58:53 Detroit Madison or some other
58:55 commercially zoned district.
58:57 What we have had and I
58:59 feel a couple of calls from
59:01 the greater New York City
59:02 area code is investors
59:03 wanting to do this short
59:06 term rental practice in our
59:07 residence residents.
59:09 Arguably there's a carrying
59:11 cost that the experience
59:13 based on the character
59:16 of use and regular impacts
59:21 on neighborhood parking
59:23 and those are things that
59:24 are not necessarily nuisance
59:26 behaviors and yet the cost
59:28 to the neighborhood is
59:29 greater than zero and right
59:30 now I don't think we're
59:32 acknowledging that.
59:34 So that's why I think it
59:36 conversation to include all
59:37 options on the table
59:39 from a ban or a highly
59:41 regulate or just to
59:42 consider them potentially
59:45 bed and breakfast which do
59:47 permit them but they
59:48 have but the existing
59:49 code has pretty strict
59:51 requirements or what
59:53 Councilman Baker is
59:55 I think all options should
59:56 be on the table and I
59:58 personally don't want to
1:04:56 maybe take someone's concerns
1:05:05 because we've been listing those
1:05:16 would we have the possibility
1:05:23 Would we have the opportunity
1:05:26 because we've been responsible?
1:05:31 That's approximately one percent
1:05:38 I didn't print that copy up
1:05:50 I mean, I probably wouldn't
1:06:00 everybody's limited to five
1:06:18 So if you can just very quickly
1:06:22 us directly after the fact as well.
1:06:35 we're going to discuss this
1:06:43 and actually rewrite the language
1:06:47 So you will have another opportunity
1:06:49 to comment publicly on this.
1:06:52 We're just running over time.
1:06:54 in the regular meeting of council,
1:06:56 but thank you for your comments.
1:06:57 They're definitely appreciated.
1:07:02 If you have to come up to the,
1:07:05 state your name and address
1:07:12 Hi, my name is Sierra Kravick
1:07:17 Split the five minute, time.
1:07:21 We are at 1540 Warren Road,
1:07:23 which there are quite a few short term rental properties
1:07:28 already in our close vicinity.
1:07:30 So we aren't really sure about how
1:07:31 that grandfathering process will happen,
1:07:33 but we are speaking on behalf
1:07:37 as well as other residents is on Warren Road.
1:07:40 We want to allow businesses to operate.
1:07:43 that these businesses need to go
1:07:44 through the proper channels
1:07:50 Our neighbor has recently announced to us
1:07:53 that he wants to turn his property
1:07:56 So we're now looking at five
1:08:04 So we've had multiple issues already
1:08:07 with his longer term rentals,
1:08:10 with taking care of the house
1:08:14 that fall into our property.
1:08:17 He doesn't live in Lakewood
1:08:22 to answer us and take care of things
1:08:27 So I think our focus is to,
1:08:35 to be able to operate within Lakewood,
1:08:38 but have to go through the proper channels,
1:08:39 whether they have to live in Lakewood
1:08:41 or Cuyahoga County or that sort of thing.
1:08:43 So I think that's our focus.
1:08:45 Yeah, just in terms of timely responses
1:08:49 and all that, things like noise complaints
1:08:51 and stuff, file the paperwork
1:08:53 and it'll take weeks and weeks
1:08:54 and in that time there could be multiple stays.
1:08:56 And so we're kind of worried
1:08:59 in terms of if someone's already
1:09:00 maybe an irresponsible landlord
1:09:02 that this just could exacerbate
1:09:06 that their neighbors have to deal with.
1:09:09 Great, thanks for your comment.
1:09:10 Anybody else from the public at this time?
1:09:13 a lot of opportunity to debate this.
1:09:15 If there's no other comments,
1:09:18 to discharge this ordinance from committee
1:09:20 so that council members Baker and Bullock
1:09:23 can continue to work on the language.
1:09:26 Motion's made and seconded.
1:09:32 That's all the business for the committee.
1:09:34 and be back for regular council.