Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to go ahead and get started. Our chair, Council Member Cervantes, is on her way in. And in the meantime, I'm Vice Chair Philip Falcone, and we'll begin so we can respect time. It's 9.01, 9.02. We'll begin our Land Use Committee meeting. As always, we begin with public comment. And so we can go ahead and play the recording for public comment, please.

Public comment is now open for this item, available in both English and Spanish. Call 951-826-8686 and follow the prompts to access the meeting in either language. To request to speak, press star 9. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID for both languages can be found on the agenda.

Good morning, everyone. We are now taking a couple of comments. I think we have one caller on the line. Go ahead.

My name is Alejandro. I'm a scientist and artist and resident of Riverside and political strategist for Mandate Democracy, a 501 based on the East Coast. And I'm here to say that the true art soul and innovation of Riverside happens on our streets with our residents, not inside City Hall. Some of you parade around calling the city an arts and innovation hub to pad the PR stats, but the real innovation requires real leadership. The data and public records prove you aren't even managing basic survival. We can't meet state affordable housing mandates. We suffer the worst air quality in the country, choking our youth with some of the highest childhood asthma rates. You fail on housing. You fail on public health. And now we are here to talk about handing our power grid and precious water over to a data center. The city council and the mayor need to rise to the occasion. You need to learn how to lead by obeying the will of the people, and the will of Riverside is no data center. Even if you erase words like data center from your MOUs to quiet us down, we know what deals like iVets and STEMworks bring here. You're inviting server farms to train AI models for surveillance cameras on our own streets, and you're handing over our backyards so corporations can watch us while squeezing us dry. Make no mistake, this is the issue that breaks the camel's back. If you refuse to vote on a complete citywide ban, you are directly opening the door to state-level intervention. We are actively compiling our administrative record, spatial mapping data, and SB1000 noncompliant evidence to submit directly to the California Attorney General's Bureau of Environmental Justice. We are prepared to serve this city with a petition for a writ of mandate under Code Civil Procedure 1085 to freeze noncompliant industrial approvals. This is the line in the sand. Voting against the data center ban or building the pipeline for one is a direct middle finger to the working class folks, families, artists, and innovators and children of this city. If you fail to obey your constituents, you are sealing your own political and administrative fate. We are done begging, we are mobilized, and we will bring state civil rights oversight and end your political careers at the ballot box.

bend the knee to the citizens of riverside or we will put in leaders who know how to lead instead of bureaucrats thank you ban data centers now thank you so much and we just want to remind folks we do have that item coming up which we are going to probably shuffle the agenda a little bit so we'll be discussing that so if you want to make a public comment on the data center just uh don't worry we'll be sure to include you for that portion coming up next uh any other public comment nope and then sitting down online i do believe we have here two in chambers but looks like those are for the first those uh that item so we will go ahead and close general public comment and come back to the agenda i am going to shift um just looking at my colleagues two and three so i think since we have a little more interest in three for some folks who might be here need to head to work or those tuning in i want to give them the opportunity so we'll move forward with item number three and we have our presenter which which is vice chair falconi and this is going to be discussing amendment to the rmc regarding the city's development regulations to prohibit data centers as allowable land use within the city

Thank you, Chair Cervantes. Good morning, everyone. Here before you, as Chair Cervantes shared, is a proposal to begin the discussion related to a data center ban in the city of Riverside. We can go to the next slide, please. I'm sorry, I don't have the clicker with me.

Thank you, thank you.

So, of course, the background is somewhat well-known across our country that it is a hot-button topic right now, the topic of data centers, and I think that this, of course, stems from much of what we know related to the rapid growth of cloud computing, AI, and the need for this as our technological landscape advances in our country. And so we see a lot of this conversation happening all across our country. And we here in California, Southern California, are no different. Other cities recently have enacted either moratoriums or bans on this land use. So the presentation will be in relation to that. so the discussion really this is a short this is a short presentation i really want to turn to my colleagues as well as from the public to hear their perspective but uh really when you break down the the challenges that that data centers present to our cities i think there's several different um topics that must be discussed the protection of land and community resources so we in in riverside do have limited commercial land industrial land which in many cases large-scale data centers would require large amounts of land. And while we don't really have tons of available land, in particular certain places like the Greenbelt, for example, are protected and this wouldn't affect that, while there aren't particularly large amounts of land, there are areas in wards one, two, three, and four that do have larger amounts of available land that could be affected by this particular land use than other wards. In particular, I think in Ward 1, our north side neighborhood is particularly susceptible to this potential impact. So we talk about the issue of land and land availability and how we want to utilize the little remaining available land we have in our city. There's not particularly a large amount of jobs that are produced by this land use. We also have the issues of infrastructure and environmental impacts. There is a large requirement of water, electricity, and other resources that go into this particular use. And the challenge here in Riverside, of course, we do have distinct electrical demands and electrical needs with one connection to the statewide grid that we do have certain struggles to meet the electricity requirement that our residents and customers need now let alone you add more on top of that water is not as large of a concern because of course we do have ample water supply in Riverside but just because we have ample water supply does not mean that we should be wasteful and we should be prudent in our water use. And then finally, we talk about economic development. This is where I talk about the matter of principle that the city council needs to have the tough conversation about what do we want to welcome into our city? What type of land use do we want? I call it the matter of principle. Principally, what would we like to see in our city? So when we, in my mind, the way we frame the topic of data centers are kind of framed in these three main buckets as well as when we look at what could be done then so I think when we talk about proactive long-term planning we have to decide here and make recommendations to other bodies that City Council and of course Planning Commission getting their input and what is what makes the most sense given all that has been shared in previous slides in some cases there may be more of an appetite to look at closing loopholes and having a legitimate discussion on regulation versus ban and what that would look like there's a possibility for that discussion to to happen today and that might even come down really to a matter of opinion by each individual each individual member But I think that, again, if we look at things in terms of those various buckets, it paints a picture of what do we have here in Riverside that would be allowable and available for a development of this kind, and does it make sense for the principal matter of what we want our city to be in terms of land use. And finally, just what I'm proposing, and the report is lengthy, and I urge anyone who wants to maybe have a hard time sleeping to go ahead and read my report. It might put you to sleep real quick. But there is a lot of information there. I think what is coming before this, what I'm presenting before this body today, is having a discussion to introduce an ordinance that would, for my perspective a ban this use outright in the city of Riverside but of course I'm willing to look at other other potential compromises or other opportunities wanting to of course though include our Planning Commission as required and of course the full City Council That's really all the presentation is. Data centers are well known. This is not something that some, you know, not as commonly seen and heard about in the media and otherwise. So I'm just going to end the presentation there, Madam Chair, and looking forward to conversations. The final thing maybe I will share, though, is that there were several letters of support that I, but one in particular I want to highlight. I'm not going to go through all of them, but one in particular from the University of California, Riverside. Seventy-five researchers, scientists, and professors have all signed on to a letter of support for banning data centers, and I think that that carries a lot of weight from my perspective. Our greatest research institution, when 75 of those are saying this is not what they would like to see in their city either. Thank you, Madam Chair.

thank you vice chair and I see my colleague did we have clarifying questions or go to public comment come back okay perfect we'll go to public comment then we'll come back for committee discussion um I do see here we have two cards in the chamber and we'll open up the call lines as well uh Kristen Christine apologies and then we have next uh Rosalie

Hi, my name is Christine. I've lived in Ward 2 for the last seven years. I have a Master of Public Policy from UC Riverside. I believe I signed one of those letters as part of the EDGE Institute as a representative of UC Disaster Resilience Network. And I would like to urge you all to vote in support of banning data centers. I think it's no secret that warehouses already have a pretty disastrous impact on our city. And as on the IE in general we have one of the highest rates of asthma in the country if not the highest I believe the second highest would be San Luis Obispo County per my research And it's also no secret that when it's very hot outside we have already a pretty significant strain on our electrical grid There are numerous power outages when it's hot because everyone's running their air conditioning I don't think that we have the infrastructure to be able to support large-scale or even a mid-scale data center mid-sized facilities can use hundreds of thousands of gallons of water while large ones like the one we're seeing proposed in Imperial Valley was suing for millions of gallons of water we may have adequate water resources now in Riverside but I think that that's going to change pretty significantly we're already seeing cuts to the Colorado River water allocations in that IE. So I would hope that the water that we do have is reserved for people to use and not for data centers. Let's see. There's also numerous health and environmental concerns that come with data centers. Air pollution being one of them. It's much worse than a warehouse, and I know that there may be some confusion between the difference between a warehouse and a data center, but there is a significant difference in the infrastructure needed and the effects that data centers have on the community. They also create pretty significant health risks, respiratory and cardiovascular issues due to localized particulate matter and pollutant exposure. And then also noise pollution. I'm sure y'all have seen videos of people who live near data centers and the noise that they're hearing. I think that that would drive me insane if that was by my house and I had to hear that all the time. And then I know a large concern that we have is the tax incentives and the tax base. I know that the economic incentive for a data center is pretty large. But a lot of the times, these tax incentives are given to developers and reduce tax revenue without returning on jobs. Because once a data center is built, they don't require very many jobs to continue to run the data center. So along with my colleagues who signed on to the letter, I would just urge you to support this data center ban. Thank you.

Thank you. Rosalie? And then we have two more callers online afterwards. Oh, three. Okay, never mind. There's more people joining online. We'll keep calling on you as you come through. Go ahead. You have three minutes.

Good morning. I would like to speak in support of banning data centers citywide. My name is Rose Taylor. I live in Ward 4 with my husband. He's a public school teacher in RUSD. And we plan to live here until the day we die. We love Riverside. If you look outside in the downtown, The wood streets and Fairmount Park what I saw when I first moved here was how much Riverside had invested in the beauty and the aesthetics of this city We live in Ward 4 which is a more modern development in Riverside But our favorite places to go here and to find the culture and scene are in the old places It breaks my heart when I see cities and spend their money on developing things that are for profit only. They are not for the community. I saw Steven, when he was discussing supporting having data centers in Riverside, something he said about it was, quote, this is a community data center of and by and for the community. The benefit of the community to ensure that the community has access to the AI at consistent rates. I would like to question what exactly it is that this community needs from AI that it needs from a local data center. I am almost convinced that Steven, if he had a data center in his backyard, he would never go there because they are so ugly, they are loud, they are polluting, they take your water pressure. I am a musician and an artist. So I have my personal convictions about AI. You know, AI being people talk about how it increases access for folks to engage in the arts, engage in literacy and writing. But I also think about the violin small business that closed down in downtown Riverside because they did not have enough customers to support staying open. And when I think about what we could have done if we wanted to invest in this community, I think about that store because they had been supporting violinists in this community for decades, and now they're gone. And part of the reason is because of the investment in Amazon warehouses and online businesses who export and take from us. In conclusion, I think that the citywide ban would be a net positive for this community because it would give us the community an opportunity to discuss what we actually want to build here. Corporations should not be in charge of what is being built in this city. It should be us people who are living in it and who have to look at what is being built every day. Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming down. We'll take the, oh, and actually we have one more caller, one more card that came in the chamber. Vanessa Valenzuela? And then we'll move to callers online.

Hello, I'm a resident in Ward 3. I have only lived here for six years, but like the last speaker, I do plan on staying here the rest of my life and my son as well. He's going to take our house and live here with his family forever. So there are very few, almost zero, environmental impact reports for data centers in California. And right now, there aren't any laws to make data centers disclose their water usage. I know you had mentioned, Mr. Falcone, the The usage that we would need in the summer for our power, data centers obviously will put an extra strain on our grid. So I definitely support the ban, the citywide ban on data centers. Thank you.

Thank you for coming down. Can we please take our first caller online? Go ahead.

Speaker on mute.

Go ahead. We can hear you.

Good morning.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead. You have three minutes.

OK. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. My name is Tatiana Flores, and I'm a resident of Moreno Valley and an organizer with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. I am one of your neighbors. And I'm calling today to express my support for a data center prohibition in Riverside and to urge the city of Riverside to follow your neighbors in Paris and Moreno Valley that are working towards banning AI data centers, or at least having a moratorium in their jurisdictions. As previous speakers have mentioned, there are various studies and community testimonies that highlight the significant amount of water and energy that AI data centers require to cool down. According to the International Energy Agency, a single modern AI data center can use as much power as 100,000 homes, and many of the larger ones being built are expected to consume up to 20 times that amount. Additionally, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that a mid-sized data center consumes around 300,000 gallons of water a day, which poses concern for Southern California regions as we often face drought and dry conditions. And you know, water is one of those resources that once it gets used up, it cannot be regenerated. I know that Falcone mentioned that, you know, we do have a lot of water here in the city of Riverside, but like I mentioned, once it's used, it cannot be regenerated. Allowing for data centers to be proposed or built in the city of Riverside would go against the city's goals for their general plan update and climate action and adaptation plan that they have spent the past few years working on, especially priorities related to energy and extreme heat. For a city, as mentioned in the report, that has long distinguished itself through its thoughtful land use planning, this is not a land use type that would be consistent with the city's long-term planning objectives. Riverside and the 215 region, including Murano Valley, Paris, and Mead Valley, already face poor air quality due to the over-industrialization and inundation of warehousing. We are facing warming temperatures and more regularity of fires in our region, including the one that happened by the Santa Ana River. This would do nothing else but contribute to this issue. And thank you so much.

Thank you. Can we please take the next caller?

Hi, this is Keith Nelson, Ward 3. I think it's extraordinary irony that in discussing a ban on data centers in this room, this meeting is being streamed, recorded, and distributed using data center infrastructure. The computers and cloud applications in front of you depend on data centers. Police, fire, emergency, cybersecurity, and virtually every modern operation depends on it. Data centers are critical infrastructure for the economy and increasing our national security. Yes, before Riverside even has a data center on the table, we're discussing a ban. Ban what? Ban the council from itself? Where's the application? Where's the proposed location? Where's the requested megawatt load? Where's the water requirement? Where's the cooling design? Where's the infrastructure request? There's no project you're evaluating. It's just photo ops and drama. Don't pass a general ban merely to protect this council from having to make difficult discussions later. Strong leaders do not need a prohibition to protect themselves from their own discretion. Most of the report and commentary so far is not based on current data center technology. Take Loudoun County reports data centers occupy roughly 4% of its commercial parcels while generating 38% of the general fund revenue. Grant PUD requires large power users to pay for additional resources and infrastructure like underground utilities. and underground transmission line. The city has repeatedly behaved more like an angel investor than an economic development agency. Riverside has committed substantial public resources to companies like Ohio, seven direct jobs. $2.3 million for Volta trucks. $2.2 million from the general revenue. $1.96 million for 45 Chevy Chargers. I hope they all succeed. But right now, their drain on the infrastructure, the resources, the electrical supply is greater than modern day data centers. So now we're bringing in an industry capable of bringing hundreds and millions and billions of private capital, and our answer is, let's ban it. Let's just follow a political ideology. Let's do photo ops of us banning it. Why reject it? That's not leadership. Remember, everyone else believing in Riverside Ban Data Center, the federal government owns March Air Force Base, immediately east of this region. Washington has identified secure domestic security IA computing and infrastructure is increasingly important to national security. Riverside can't prevent the federal government or neighboring jurisdictions for pouring infrastructure outside its boundaries. So imagine the absurd result. The data center gets built anyway. Riverside experiences regional power and infrastructure pressures.

Thank you. Can we please take our next speaker caller?

Hi, good morning. I just wanted to come on here. I had already sent an email, but this is such a big conversation that I just wanted to make sure everyone was heard and I just wanted to be heard. I've been living here and in places around Riverside, different parts of Riverside since 2010. My family and I moved here since I was little. And we loved Riverside so much that whenever my family was offered another job at another state, I told them, California is great, Riverside is great. And now me and my family have built our life here. I think data centers is just not a great way to grow the city. People already around Riverside and neighboring cities don't like the warehouses and all that. So I don't think bringing in data centers would be a good idea. And then just the things that come with that too, just the pollution, wasting our resources. It's harming the environment and the animals too. So I think just banning the data centers would be a great idea. And I feel like that idea is kind of shared along with mostly Everybody I know and everybody that I meet throughout the day. So thank you.

Thank you for calling in this morning and just think we have any other callers in the queue. No other public comment cards. We have one more caller. Let's go ahead, take the color. Go ahead.

Don't listen to voices like Keith telling you that because we all rely on data centers, hosting them is somehow a matter of national security or essential economic progress. Inviting outside capital and giant tech infrastructure into Riverside does not magically solve our deep social and political crises. It exacerbates them. Pretending that sacrifice zone economics equals national security is a corporate talking point designed to make us surrender our local power, grid, and our water. We aren't here asking to turn off the internet. Modern operations depend on electricity, water, and clean air. The exact resources that server farms extract from communities, they're already at breaking points. Demanding that corporations build elsewhere is not anti-technology. It is basic environmental protection. If the Council chooses corporate capital over constituents, the consequences are immediate. We have legal teams ready to file a petition for a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 to freeze noncompliant industrial approvals in court. Second, this administrative record details noncompliance, environmental justice failures, and public health neglect. That will be delivered directly to the California Attorney General's Bureau environmental justice third we will bring this vote to every doorstep in Riverside every family breathing our polluted air and plain inflated utility rates will know exactly who sold out our community pass a complete citywide ban on data centers now or we will see you in court and the ballot box thank you thank you so much and I think we have another caller that came on so go ahead caller

Good morning. My name is Theo in Cleveland. I am a resident of Ward 1, and I am a PhD student at UCR. And I appreciate this opportunity to comment and want to strongly urge a vote yes for banning public data, for banning data centers. The concerns of jobs, the concerns that have been brought up previously here, I want to note Mississippi's Canton facility that was opened by Amazon back in 2025. Amazon opened a $10 billion AI data center and promised 1,000 jobs, but within months, residents began reporting lung irritation, breathing difficulties, construction dust settling all over their homes and playgrounds. Cooling towers pulled millions of gallons of water daily from already stressed river systems, and residents are quoted as saying they were promised prosperity, but all they got was poisoned air and vanishing water and didn't even see the jobs that they were promised. The same has happened in the Monterey Park area in California. The same has happened to the Stargate project in Saline Township in Michigan. big jobs and big profits and only deliver on environmental catastrophe. So I want to thank the committee, thank the council here for considering a yes vote on banning data centers.

Thank you so much. Interesting if we have any other callers. I think we have one more that might be on. Just taking a moment to double check.

Mr. Moore.

Okay, yes. Looks like we still have another caller on the line. If we can go ahead and take the next caller, please.

Good morning. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. Can you speak a little bit louder?

Yes. There we go. Go ahead. Very good. Thank you. My name is Herb Graybell. I'm a real estate advisor in Southern California. I would like to suggest that the council... look further into this before a complete ban. As a couple of the callers stated before us, we use data centers in a lot of part of our lives. banks, the city itself. There are so many ways that we're already utilizing these technologies. That's number one. There is so much misinformation going on tied to this. It's become very political. But most of these projects that we're hearing about are larger projects that we are seeing throughout the country. But one size does not fit all. There are other types of smaller and medium-sized opportunities that will make sense in cities, in existing facilities, not large land opportunities. The other misinformation is on inputs. Water, as an example. A lot of the new chips, do not need the amount of cooling of water that is suggested. Think of your radiator in a car, utilizing other types of fluids. These closed loop systems are the same that are used on these types of facilities. So the suggestion would be that there's other opportunities here. We're exploring what's called AI innovation centers, where if you listen to Jensen Huang, who did the keynote at the Comdex on January 4th, he's talking about the future of AI in data centers, where we're going to see advanced manufacturing utilizing these technologies. These are going to create jobs for our communities. So I would implore that the council take a breath and do a bigger study on this before you do any type of moratoriums or any bans. Study this. Look at all sides of this. Look how Riverside, which has always been the future of Southern California, take a look at how we can utilize these technologies to create win-wins. uh for our community for creating jobs uh so thank you very much for your time but uh very much appreciate you take thank you i'm just seeing if we have any more callers and okay no looks like we're gonna close up a comment and we will come back to committee

Madam Chair, a public comment made two things come to mind that I forgot to clarify. Yes, please go ahead. And then I'll be quiet since I've spoken plenty for the time being and allow for my two colleagues to speak. Just a couple things that I should have clarified more clearly, and I do apologize for not. The Land Use Committee and the role of the City Council is this is what we're supposed to do is to decide what land uses we want to see in the City of Riverside. We are not supposed to just sit back and wait for things to come to us. The very purpose of this committee is to be proactive in deciding what land uses we want to see in the City of Riverside. If we weren't to do that, People would call in and say, we're unprepared, we're negligent in doing our job, so we're kind of damned either way. I recognize that, but the very purpose is for us to decide what type of land uses we want to see in the city of Riverside. So this is exactly what our job is to do, number one. Number two, this is also beginning of the process. Of course, I've made recommendations here, but they could be changed by this body. From there, it'll go to the Planning Commission for even greater input, public oversight. The public, their voice is the Planning Commission, members of our public. Then from there, it'll go to the full city council. So this is just a beginning process. There may be a vote today, one way or another, but it's the beginning of a process. There's no final decision made today. So we will be looking into it further when... it goes to those various um committees and bodies and there are no photographers here this is not a photo op this is us doing our job uh so i wanted to clarify those few things madam chair because i didn't want that to be misconstrued based on my presentation thank you thank you and now we'll go over to council member mill

Thank you, Chair. As Councilmember Falcone pointed out, this is just the starting point. There's going to be multiple meetings, more going forward, public hearings, all of the above. And he's right. If we weren't being proactive on things, we'd be ACCUSED OF BEING REACTIVE TO EVERYTHING. SO FIRST I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER VALCONI FOR TAKING LEAD ON THIS. IT'S ALL STEMMED OUT. I KEEP HEARING FOLKS SAYING THERE'S BEEN NO DATA CENTERS PROPOSED HERE IN THE CITY. THIS REALLY KIND OF STEMMED OUT Uh, there was a proposal before one of our other committees, other council committees were, you know, there was a data center that was proposed and it, it came out of that council committee and it was actually coming to city council, uh, probably about a month ago, I think it was. And, uh, council member Falcone and I, uh, had a conversation after that meeting, uh, kind of put things on our, on our radar. And so I want to thank him for, for stepping up and, uh, you know, bring your proposal forward. Um, Where that proposal goes is up to the entire council. It's going to go to planning commissions. There's a long way to go. I hear some callers calling in and already threatening the council, well, this proposal CAME FROM THE COUNCIL. THIS IS THE COUNCIL OUT IN THE FOREFRONT. SO LET'S TEMPER DOWN THE THREATS UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT THE COUNCIL IS LOOKING TO DO HERE. SO THANK YOU AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER FALCONI FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. ONE THING I AM HAPPY TO SEE IS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, THOSE IN FAVOR OF DATA CENTERS AND THOSE AGAINST DATA CENTERS, THINK THAT WE NEED a second connection to the power grid. So clearly, uh, the, what I gathered from both sides is that, uh, we definitely need to move forward with RTRP, which will give us a second connection to the statewide power grid since our current power grid is, uh, threatened. So thank you both sides for, for making, uh, the point that we do need to see, uh, a SEC connection to the statewide power grid. With that, who do I direct my questions to? Do I direct them to you, or is there someone from the staff?

If it's a question that I'd like to answer, I'll take it. Otherwise, I'll probably direct it to our planning, our city planner or someone else, depending on the topic.

Okay. So I do have three questions that I prepared. So depending on whether you feel comfortable answering. So my first question is regarding land use and the economic return. You know, given that Riverside has a finite amount of commercial and industrial land, Can staff or my colleague explain how permanent jobs and other long-term economic benefits generated by a typical data center compare with other industrial, manufacturing, research, or employment-generating uses that could occupy the same amount of land?

What I'm happy to do, Member Mill, is to share a little bit, and then if there is anyone from staff that does want to add information, they can. From the staff perspective, of course, I recognize a lot of my responses may be biased because I come from the political side versus staff comes from the apolitical side. I mean, one of our commenters, I believe, even shared, too, that the difference between warehousing and data centers, they're often conflated. And I'm, of course, no supporter of warehousing, but even warehousing provides more jobs than a data center would. There are lower quality jobs, but a data center really has virtually no economic impact in relation to the jobs that it produces. And in the report it shares a little bit, but in the slides it didn't cover much of it because it's virtually nonexistent. I mean, the proposal that came before us, or was going to come before us, was proposing this data center that was some kind of way going to train people and have jobs. I'm personally skeptical of that because every other data center that was looked at, in particular the ones that we looked at for this report, are, I recognize, not in California. They're in more of the East Coast and Midwest. They're massive and do not have jobs. the job output that I think people that support them claim that they do. But it's more so I think the benefit that people see of it is that it's providing something for this technologically advanced economy and therefore some positive impact there. I see our Director of Economic Development has a comment as well.

Yes, thank you so much. Good morning, Honorable Chair. Thank you so much, Committee Member Mill, for the question. Staff would be grateful for the opportunity to study that and to take that to you and to the full council for consideration and deliberation, but Council Member Falcone is correct. Generally, there are a lower number of jobs associated with this type of use, but it really depends. How is it cited? What is the function? What is the purpose? What is the square footage of the facility? What are the types of jobs? It really depends.

Okay, thank you. Now, my second question is about protecting Riverside's electric infrastructure. And as both sides pointed out, especially here in summer, and I've noticed a lot in Ward 5 recently on these hot days where we've had to take down, where We've had failure with our power and these type of facilities put a strain on our infrastructure which is currently strained thanks to the fact that we have only one connection to the statewide power grid and hopefully we'll have two once RTRP is completed. But my second question would be, you know, considering the extraordinary and continuous electrical demand associated with data centers, what risk could these facilities create for Riverside's electric system, particularly when our first responsibility is maintaining reliable and affordable power for our existing residents and businesses? And as I'm stating is that currently, over the last week in Ward 5, we've had people without power, you know, one day it was 11, 12 hours. And that's with the current, without any data centers, without these major strains, but until we have that second connection, thanks to RTRP, you know, Can you explain that to me?

Thank you. Thank you, Member Mill. We've experienced the same situation in Ward 1, where it'll be almost a full day with a lack of electricity, in particular in our downtown neighborhood. This is really, I think, one of the greatest drivers behind this. I had shared, you know, water, of course, matters, but really the driving behind this proposal is related to electrical infrastructure. We've had presentations to the full city council many times over and over again, in particular during the conversation period. related to our TRP is that we struggle to meet the demand that we face in particular in the summer. And as we grow as a city, we know more housing is coming. We know more development is coming, much of it mandated by the state. We have to both balance that. If we're struggling now to meet the current demand, we're going to add more housing on top of that, which is going to have greater demand. And you're going to add industrial uses like data centers or warehousing on top of that. It just comes down to, irrespective if someone supports the land use or not, it comes down to something's got to give. You can only keep adding more and more and more and more until the system is going to buckle and going to fail. So that's really been the greatest driver to this, is that even if the discussion, maybe the full city council were to decide, just put a pause on this until we have that second connection, that could be an option just because we can't meet that need. You're saying it's happening in Ward 5, it's happening in Ward 1, I imagine it's happening in other wards as well, where we have existing residents who we have the greatest obligation... to deliver that service to. They are not able to have air conditioning in their house, to have their lights on at night because of an inability to provide the necessary electrical infrastructure.

And I don't see anybody from RPU here, but we'll make sure to pass those questions along. Because for me, it is vitally important that on hot summer days here in Riverside, People don't realize how strained our current electrical system is. Adding this additional strain to it could be, I don't want to be like Chicken Little saying catastrophic, but it potentially could lead to bad things. Again, until we have a second connection to the statewide power grid, I think data centers would got to be a non-starter in the city. And, you know, we really need to make sure we get that second connection built. So then, you know, a lot of people are saying, well, we're putting the cart before the horse by talking about it. And as my colleague pointed out, that's exactly why we have these committees is to spitball things, to talk about them, move them forward to other, to the planning commission in this instance and It'll come to the full council. There'll be plenty of time for impact. And so people are always asking, well, like you say, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. They'd be like, oh, you guys are reactionary. So why act proactively rather than wait for an application? Well, there already was an application for a data center. That's what kind of spurred this conversation this morning. But my final question is, Is there an advantage, and I guess I can direct to you, but also to Miranda as well, I think, is there an advantage to establishing a clear policy now before we have a bunch of applications in the pipeline?

Yes, thank you for the thoughtful question. Absolutely. The more clarity and direction that staff has from you as a committee, from the council, the better. Absolutely. And that helps to guide staff activities, such as for the example you have shared with the IVETS MOU. However, I would note for the record, it was not a formal application for a data center.

Okay. But there was a data center. In the staff report, it did say data center, and that really was kind of what spurred this conversation today. So, I mean, it was just we noticed that, and we said, hey, we should have a conversation about data centers.

Member Mill, yes, you're correct in that. There was something I was working on slowly in the background, but that particular proposal or the MOU gave me a boost, a kick in the backside to really move a lot faster. It was actually my foot. Is that what that was? Well, clearly it worked. And so this would have come no matter what, but since there was an MOU that had a phase two, the phase two had a data center in there, that's what caused this to have greater speed to it. Thank you.

You know, lastly, just in closing, you know, this isn't about opposing technology or innovation because people say, oh, you're the city of arts and innovation. Why aren't you being innovative? You know, this is about determining whether an infrastructure intensive land use is what's best for Riverside's future. It's about having a conversation. It's about getting in the room and talking about these things and, you know, The three of us aren't the final arbiters of how things are going to go, but I think this is a good start. And again, I want to thank Council Member Falcone for bringing it to the forefront.

Thank you all. So a couple comments, and I think potential questions for myself to add on to this conversation. And I want to just start with also contributing to the discussion. I think it's unique when we have a committee that is, I think, aligned on the issue before we've even come to discussion independently. And none of us have spoken about this until coming here today. But I think that report, as it was flagged, that went through economic development, and that reference that ai data center was triggering i think for the three of us in different ways and so or even similar ways and so i am grateful as well to my colleague to lead in bringing this forward because i think what all three of us had looked at to see about that being the discussion point um so i'm just glad that we could be on this committee today to have this discussion to start the dialogue um and so with that i will add and personally share just a little bit of points and Think for me reading through this report and I do appreciate you councilmember for putting this together one of the key things that stuck out to me and in my research we know that a lot of data centers and we look at land use and Um, one of the areas that we tend to see them are in already current warehouse spaces and more to having the largest warehouse footprint. What makes me a little nervous just in one part of the, under the proposed ordinance is it's stating that a facility should be considered a data center when more than 50% of the facilities, primary operations are devoted to data center functions. And then it goes into the list of what, you know, definition is. Um, my only thought is, and just because of looking at city of Coachella, There was a proposal for one that was 240 acres. Technically, 50% would have been right, 120. But let's say they would have put forward 118 or 119 to just cut that threshold. So I guess I'm wondering if we could reassess the 50% and if we need to just look at it meeting the definitions. I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I love that question. I put that there because I was trying to figure out a way of how do we define what a data center is. Because that was a lot of, when I was out in the community, that's what I was hearing. Well, what do you define it based on square footage, based on use, based on all these different things? So that totally willing to negotiate and compromise on. With the intention of we need to figure out a way to define it So how and that's because that effort is to close some of those loopholes Because what I don't want is for folks to say as was said well, it's a community data center. So therefore it's okay There's no such thing as a community data center. There's it's not like there's a community center at a park But there's no community data center. And so if we just define it, I think that would help not only in terms of how we Talk about these things but also then of course how it's implemented. I

That's great, and I appreciate that. I think that was the one caveat that I would look to then for future, whether it looks like, and for the process, it looks like we're going to be looking to, from a recommendation from this committee, to go to Planning Commission for input, potentially, or do we want this to go directly to Council?

This would need to go to Planning Commission. I don't think it's prudent to have their input, but it's a requirement. It needs to go to Planning Commission.

Okay, thank you. Just for clarification. So with that, I think when it goes to Planning Commission, that component of what is the definition, right, again, and what should it encompass, and maybe examining if that 50% is necessary or if it's just based on definition, I do think we need to include data centers slash server farms. In research, I've seen as well that that has been something of a confusing point for folks, you know, and especially for past data centers in other parts of the country being approved. Folks hear server farm and think it's ag-related, but it's in fact not. It's actually technology-based. Another thought is perhaps the definition includes or says something to that. If a project would require X amount of connection to or usage of electricity or water to the grid or to our water systems, I guess trying to just say, quite frankly, if there are folks trying to move around the caveat of certain definitions or trying to see how they could just fall underneath a square footage or a land use definition. How do we protect and preserve really what is the intent, of course, of this land use ordinance or policy that we would do? And then just to flag that one thing that I read that was interesting from the Land Trust Alliance Resource Center Online stating here, and I think this is to a point that we're all making as a committee, is that these large AI data centers, especially referred to the ones that are in hyperscale, require an enormous amount of electricity and water to cool and power the processors. And while a conventional data center can use the same amount of electricity as up to 25,000 households, one hyperscale data center can use as much as 100,000 homes, which is equivalent to a small city. Data centers are currently projected to consume 6.7% to 12% of total US electricity by 2028. And on a state or local level, that could go dramatically higher. as we've said here, and then there's more reference on transmission impacts, I think that really is the gist of a lot of what we're looking to do here is to protect and preserve our water, electricity, protect our neighborhoods, protect what we are looking to make sure we think about innovation for Riverside. What does that mean for us as the 12th largest city in California? I will say other things that I think would be Interesting to add to the discussion. I did see that the city of Monterey Park did actually move forward a vote to the community, to their city, to move forward in June whether they wanted to ban outright data centers. And there was an 86% turnout vote that voted yes to ban. So I don't know. I will say that councils and leadership can change in the future. That band did essentially say to be undone. It has to be undone by the voters again So I don't know if we want to look to in the future the council deciding whether or not a future election not this November I think it'd be too short notice But maybe in the future whether that goes to the Charter Commission Committee for review as that's being established or if directly council wants to say You know the future next election We want to put this on the ballot for the voters to decide and I will say overwhelmingly in my ward and in the city I've heard there be a strong support for a ban on this and So I do think that was an interesting approach from the city of Monterey Park, but we have also seen other cities, Coachella more recently also moved to move forward with this. And I guess I would also want to just see if we're looking to do, it looks like this sounds like a proposed ordinance. So permanent ban, not a moratorium or temporary in place, correct?

From my perspective, it was a full-on ban, but like I said, I purposely put what I thought was through a wide net and through what I believed was right, but of course, it could be a moratorium for a period of time, so we get everything settled. If we want to look at things a little more, we want to work on you know, advancing, of course, that second connection. All those are options. That's really what I wanted this to be is that what do we want to bring before the Planning Commission? I do think that we do need to pull it together so the Planning Commission does have a little bit of a, I mean, I don't want to tie their hands, but I also don't want to give them total just openness because then I think it's going to become where it's too much. But it could really be either way. I wanted the ban because that's what I believe to be right. But, of course, it could be changed in a different direction.

And I think the most important piece is what you mentioned at the top is defining, definitions. So before we send it to Planning Commission, they know what they're talking about. Because a lot of times people use the term warehouse as a blanket and It could be, a warehouse could be one thing or it could be something else. So let's be very clear as to what we mean by data centers. So I think what you said, definitions are probably in order before we send it to planning.

Yeah, and I think that might be helpful. So I think, too, then thinking of conversion, right, as well as a limitation to land use for certain places, because I could see that opening up again, just other pieces, but I think hearing from here at the committee, if we could work with economic development on some of what we have discussed here, maybe coming back next month with a little bit more of the breakdown of what we would then see for any cleanup language or recommendations that we would then send to planning commission. And then from there, we can determine if, you know, what it could come back to council. Yes, please.

you madam chair members of the committee for the helpful feedback and direction um if it pleases this committee i would also offer for your consideration a similar approach to what staff is pursuing for the pallet yards and for studying that topic if it if it would please this committee to have a 45-day urgency ordinance or some type of a period that puts that temporary pause should an application or another item for consideration come through the city that would have a 45 or 90 day window similar to what we've done with the pallet yards while staff is studying this working with the planning commission and being very intentional about what those definitions are for planning commission to consider and for the full council to consider as well so i wanted to raise that for your consideration yeah and i think that's a good option yes i think we could i would love to see that come forward yes go ahead

Well, then I'm prepared to make a motion. And thank you, Miranda. I think that's definitely a good approach. And also, we have a, you know, we're doing this process, and so I think that there's a good sense of uniformity in that. This is kind of how we do things related to this particular type of work. But I'm prepared to make a motion.

If I could just add a final comment. No, thank you, Vice Chair. And I will just say that, you know, There's a lot of this discussion that's coming up now as we're looking at the priorities of balancing environmental and jobs, technology, workforce, all these things. But one of my favorite things I've seen come up on social media lately has been my favorite data center is our local libraries. and so um you know i want to stress that continuing to invest in you know what has continued to be cornerstones of our community like libraries our communities our neighborhoods our parks our open space i do believe when we look at our strategic goals in terms of sustainability i don't believe this is in par with what we're we're wanting to do as a city in terms of smart growth innovation i think a key cusp and there's still many other types of jobs and other types of businesses that we can attract here that can really create the jobs that we are people are asking of us in quantity right i think that that is also the key thing is we sometimes hear things tied to revenue and dollars but i will say personally i don't believe that there's a certain price you can put on water and water is life and and also again energy people being able to have access to especially in southern california 100 degree weather we If power goes out, people can die, you know, seniors and those access to medical equipment services needs. So I think at the end of the day, this is the right direction that I think I'm happy to hear is having this dialogue. And then hopefully we'll see how it goes with the planning commission and full council. But I would love to see the components of potentially, again, this going to ballot for the voters. As again, we don't know what the future holds and as things can change down the line, but Ultimately, if folks do not want these in our communities, maybe that's another component layer we could look at and explore. But I'll allow for now the individual who drafted to make the motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miranda, and Committee Member Mill for the comments and input. No, I would just say I think Miranda's suggestion is a wise one. So putting forward here a motion for a 45-day urgency moratorium, and then while that's happening, we can work with staff or myself can work with staff so then we can bring something back to this committee to discuss before then it goes to Planning Commission. No, we can do 90 days. I can take that friendly amendment to the motion. So a 90-day urgency moratorium as we work with staff and work to bring something back here that will define what we say is a data center before then we go to Planning Commission as required. Great.

And I'll second, but you won't be here in 90 days.

Well, I'll say, well, just for protections. Well, we want to come back before 90 days. We can work on it sooner. Yeah, but just to have the protection for in the event something were to come through.

Chair, if I can step in here. Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt there. A land use moratorium is can be done by a statutory provision There are requirements and it has to go to a full council vote. Okay, so Is that what you're proposing?

Yes, so could we make this motion today? The moratorium would need to go to the full City Council But simultaneously we could be working with staff to define these things So what we go to City Council, for example is not debating if full city council yet is not debating if we should have data centers in Riverside or not. It's more so just put a pause on this for now while these other committees and necessary processes occur?

Absolutely. It would go to the city council for an, you can do an urgency moratorium for health and safety reasons.

Okay. I think that's good. Those two things can run simultaneously. Madam Clerk, does that make sense for what the motion is?

So just to repeat it again. So 45-day urgency ordinance, 90-day urgency ordinance to the full city council, and then kind of work simultaneously with land use.

yes you know and something we'll come back here and we'll make those uh necessary definitions before it goes to planning commission for their input so but i that was the motion i don't know if we had a second madam chair okay so uh let's take a roll call vote all right uh vice chair falconi aye chair cervantes okay motion passes unanimously

Thank you so much. Thank you, committee, for the conversation. And thank you to all those who participated to join us at a 9 a.m. Land Use Committee meeting. We appreciate that. And for any items that do come to council in the future, we'll assure that this item could be placed on the agenda in an evening session for public comment and when folks could, of course, come out to join us to speak. And I'll work with, as Mayor Patem, I'll work with the clerk and the mayor and whatnot so we could make sure we could bring forward the item for the 90-day moratorium. Thank you for that. Thank you, committee. And now we'll move forward. We do have the next item up that is going to be a discussion on our proposed amendments to the entertainment permit and potential changes to appeals process for the permits. And we have Laurel, who is our presenter. Come on down, Laurel.

Actually, Edgardo Caldera and I will both be doing the presentation. So Edgardo, our principal planner, will be beginning the presentation.

Thank you so much. And we're going to go ahead and open up the public call lines for comment, but we will allow you to do presentation, and then we'll come back to committee.

Okay. Good morning, Chair Cervantes, members of the committee. I should probably have the clicker right. All right, so again, Edgardo Caldera with Community and Economic Development. So with the presentation, what we hope to do is give everyone a better understanding of the existing entertainment permit regulation and how that compares to other jurisdictions. And also at the end get direction on a few things, including how to move forward with the code amendment that came to you guys or to the council back in July. So with that, I'll jump right in. So first I want to start by providing a brief overview of the entertainment permit process. So just a little background. So since the entertainment code was adopted and added to the RMC in November of 2019, all new establishments offering entertainment have been required to obtain an entertainment permit or EP. However, ultimately the intention of the code is for all entertainment establishments in the city to have an EP. So it's also important to note that prior to the adoption of this code, entertainment establishments were operating with a Minor Conditional Use Permit, or MCUP, and many of those establishments continue to operate under such permit until this date. So an EP is valid for a two-year term and must be renewed thereafter with RPD, or Riverside Police Department, every two years. So an application for an EP are reviewed and issued by the chief of police. Before issuing the EP, the chief of police must make a required findings outlined on the slide here. So this includes finding number eight, which requires that the permittee does not have a history of violating the city code. So this finding has presented a particular challenge for existing entertainment establishments that have prior violations against the code. Because technically they don't qualify as a code is written to get an EP Even when they are otherwise operating legitimately and seeking to come into compliance with the city's permitting requirements We're Okay. So this led staff to propose the amendment brought back in July in front of the city council. So the proposed amendment really is a cleanup item that provides an exception to finding eight. And it would provide a path for existing entertainment uses with a history of code of violations to obtain an EP. if the permittee demonstrates that they have addressed the issues and also that they currently legally have an MCUP or CUP. So in addition to complying with all applicable laws and regulations, EP holders must comply with 39 Tier 1 conditions. These baseline conditions are generally consistent with conditions in existing MCUPs. that establishments already have and are focused on operating entertainment to protect life and safety and minimize nuisances such as noise. If Tier 1 conditions are violated, the Chief of Police may put the permittee on notice to address the issues, and Tier 2 conditions may be imposed at that time. And what Tier 2 conditions are, are on top of the conditions in Tier 1, and any similar conditions are superseded by more restrictive ones through that second tier. So examples of violations that get an establishment to Tier 2 conditions are having three or more noise complaints within 30 business days, or 30 calendar days, sorry, and three or more incidents requiring police or fire response within 30 days. Or a single incident also involving violence could get them to Tier 2 conditions. After 30 days on Tier 2 conditions, the permit can request to return back to those baseline conditions which are in Tier 1. So if issues are still unresolved after being on 30 days on Tier 2 conditions, The chief of police at that time has a discretion to put the applicant or permit on Tier 3 conditions, which impose more restrictive conditions, or also initiate a suspension of the actual EP through an administrative process. After 30 days on Tier 3 conditions, the permittee could request to return to one or two. However, if the EP holder continues to violate Tier 3 conditions, then at that time, the Chief of Police could initiate revocation of that EP. So essentially, by way of the current EP process that the city has, there's the ability to provide immediate enforcement, but this also affords the permittee plenty of notice and many opportunities to remedy any issues that might be at hand. But with that, I will turn it over to Laurel to go over the existing appeals process.

OK, so we wanted to provide that background on what the entertainment permit entails. So if an entertainment permit is either not issued because it cannot meet those eight findings, or if an entertainment business ends up having their permit revoked, then you could appeal that decision. So the denial, revocation, or suspension of an entertainment permit can be repealed consistent with Riverside Municipal Code section 1.17121. This code applies to all business license or business permits that are issued by the RPD. So that includes massage establishments, pawn shops, firearms dealers, etc. This code section 1.17121 was added last year. Previously, all of these RPD issued business permits had their own appeals process. So the amendment that was approved last year created this new appeals process that there was a consistent and clear process for all of these businesses that are subject to RPD review. An appeal must be filed within 10 days of a decision, whether that's the decision to deny a permit or to revoke a permit. The current process has the appeal go before an administrative hearing officer. So the administrative hearing officer is a licensed attorney, and their review is limited to the issues that were raised in the written appeal. It's important to note that any decision is stayed during that time. So when the appeal is being filed, they don't have to cease operations. They have to wait until the administrative hearing appeals officer or administrative hearing officer process proceeds. The appellant will be given at least 10 days of notice before a hearing is scheduled. And the administrative hearing officer will review the submitted evidence, and that could include police reports, criminal citations, videos, et cetera. And they'll hear testimony both from the city and from the business or from the appellant. The city bears the burden of proof that a violation did in fact occur. and each party is allowed to cross-examine the other and present evidence to the hearing officer. The only evidence that is allowed is evidence that proves ownership of the property, whether the person who received the violation is in fact the person who committed the violation, and whether the violation occurred on the date that the violation was issued, and then whether the person, the responsible party, caused the violation of the code on the date that was specified. Once all evidence has been presented and the parties have been cross-examined, the Administrative Appeals Officer will make their determination and if they find that a violation did in fact occur, they will uphold the permit denial, appeal, or suspension. The hearing officer decision is final. However, the appellant could further appeal the project via judicial review which is governed by California state law. As requested, staff did survey jurisdictions across the state. I know you cannot read this. So in our summary slide here, we looked at 30 California jurisdictions that have entertainment permit processes. And what we found is that half of them have the same appeal process as the City of Riverside. So half of them appeal their entertainment permits to a hearing officer. There are nine cities that have the process appealed to the city council. Some of those jurisdictions have the planning commission approve an entertainment permit and then it can be appealed to the city council. Some it's the chief of police and it's appealed to the city council. There is one city that you first have to appeal a decision to the city manager and then to the city council. And then there are five jurisdictions where the city council issues the entertainment permit. So essentially, they cannot be appealed. A denial of a decision to issue an entertainment permit can't be appealed. And then two of those, if a decision to revoke a permit is made, you can appeal that to the city council. Staff believes that the current appeals process outlined in section 1.17121 has numerous benefits. So first, using a uniform appeals process for all permits issued by the Riverside Police Department ensures a clear and consistent appeals process. RPD's vice unit is very familiar with the administrative hearing officer process because they use it for all of their business permits. Second and third, the person who is deciding on the appeal needs to have a strong understanding of the evidence code and they need to understand how to handle a claim of privilege by the city. There could be instances where evidence is gathered by a confidential informant or an undercover officer. So the hearing officer is a licensed attorney and they have the training and expertise to know how to handle that type of sensitive evidence. Fourth, using an independent hearing officer ensures that any improper ex-party communications between parties does not occur. The presiding officer is outside of the presence of any, that doesn't occur except for in the presence of both of the parties. Using an independent hearing officer also avoids politicization and possible arguments that the city is biased against the permit holder. And finally, and perhaps one of the strongest arguments, is that the current appeals process allows for faster decision making. So the entertainment permit is structured so that it ensures public safety and it abates public nuisance issues. As Edgardo reviewed, applicants are given 30 days to operate within this Tier 2 conditions. If they don't improve within 30 days, then they go to the Tier 3 conditions. Only after 60 days of repeated violations are they even given the chance to... is the option of revoking the permit even on the table. So prompt and decisive action is often needed if we have a business that is repeatedly operating in ways that are against public health and safety. So the decision to deny, appeal, or suspend an entertainment permit is stayed while the appeals process is going through the appeals process. And scheduling a hearing before a hearing officer is much faster than it would take to go before the city council. So we don't have the same Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance publication requirements with an administrative hearing officer. So with that, we have three main questions before the committee today. So first, we do have the proposed amendment to the Riverside Municipal Code section 5.80 that we would like to know, would you like us to proceed with that proposed amendment as is? Two, are there any specific current concerns with the current appeals process? that were not addressed today and then three should staff analyze other possible appears appeals processes to determine whether they offer improvements or should the city maintain the process as it is so i will leave these three questions up thank you so much appreciate the presentation and uh checking to see if we have any callers online we don't have any public comment cards in the chambers for this item

No callers. Okay, fantastic. We'll close public comment and come back. And if I could really quickly just lead on a couple of clarifying points, since I know there were a couple of references in here about me specifically as the council member requesting this to come back from when it came to council. And I think for myself, the biggest piece that I, and I mentioned this at the council meeting, and I think it's important to reiterate here in my committee, my biggest concern, and I was really glad to see that we, you know, in looking at other jurisdictions, where has the entertainment permit landed in terms of more so the appeal process when it comes to the hearing officer. And, you know, for again, full transparency, I had a conversation with the chief, you know, before this came forward and wanted to respectfully share that I, well, I do trust, you know, him being potentially a person to review these items and You know, I guess at the end of the day I always know that our chief of police can change in the future I don't you know, Larry has probably plans to retire eventually chief Gonzales And so, you know while we may this council may have trust in the chief and recommendations There could always be change, you know again in future to the chief is or even hearing officers and we don't know who the hearing officer would be that would be making potentially an ultimate decision if there was an appeal and Um, and I will say that I just, I find it, I'm, I'm uncomfortable. I know we were having big discussions the last week about, uh, final cost to go to the city manager and, you know, it's a completely different topic, but about, you know, the power of that lying with council. And I do feel similarly where I think that's a lot of power to give to a specific department and, um, even in reading, you know, the, through the report, uh, just, you know, I find it, you know, when it comes to this portion of the entertainment permit, and I understand it stemmed from other conversations around businesses and some things taking place, you know, in the downtown. But my thought was, you know, at the end of the day, we do, we as a council are doing a lot of the direct conversations. And when, when businesses are coming to, um, either want to explore to open doors in our wards or even the city, um, I think at the end of the day, we have sometimes our own opinion, right, of what we want to hopefully see as we're building out our wards and our communities and the neighborhoods and who's going to be a part of them. And so I think we need to be able to maintain that oversight and ability as council members and local government leaders to have comments on who we're hopefully working with. And if there are challenges or issues that come with businesses, right now to date, when there's an issue or challenge, I know many of us are proactive in working and reaching out to those businesses, especially if issues are raised by potential neighbors or residents in the community. I know the downtown is very unique, so I know I'll, of course, want to hear from the council member of the downtown who has to deal with different challenges. But I also know that there are desires, whether it's Midtown or even, you know, Westside or even for us down University Village. And there's so many other places that we've been working to explore to build out our own version of, I think, entertainment, you know, locations for people to have thriving spaces to hang out, go to or whatnot. And so I think for me just the end of the day I think the appeals process is really what I would like to see and to have the Ability that if there was an appeal I do think it needs to look at potentially going to maybe then first a city manager for review and then a city manager can then either Make that referral that decision and then it can still be appealed to maybe the council You know or again does it go directly to the City Council? but or or even the process in place with it going to Planning Commission and And so I do think that there needs to be, though, that opportunity for it to still land before council, potentially at the end of the day, so that potentially the council member of that ward could have an input. And again, if it's the will of the full council to say, no, we've seen enough evidence that X, Y, Z, we're not going to move forward with this. It's a harmful determinant, whatever it might be, or for the council to be able to hear and make a decision on We decided, you know, this person's taking X steps or we've heard from the community this business is wanted here. They've done X, Y, Z. They've, you know, they've cleaned up or done whatever they need to do to correct process. We're going to give them another chance. But I do think, and we could always limit, right, how many appeals come to council for a business as well. So is it a one-time shot? If you have to go through this whole process that comes to us, you, let's say, get the opportunity, great. But if it comes down the line again in the future, great. you know, maybe there is a certain end mark where it doesn't go forward after that. I'll stop there. I'd love to hear my colleagues' thoughts, but I do personally, I feel more comfortable if the power laid with the current process that we had in place or if it does ultimately land with the coming back to the council for the final decision. So, Council Member Mill?

So, I'm comfortable moving forward with what we're currently doing because I believe our chief is the one who's in the best position of making the evaluation decision regarding public safety circumstances surrounding entertainment permits. One thing I like that was highlighted in your presentation is that this makes it less political. When it comes back to the council, it becomes a political issue. I see the chief in that process as an apolitical person. He's making it from a public safety standpoint. I looked at, thank you for putting the survey together, and I noticed that most cities that are similar to Riverside, they use a public hearing officer, the You know, it's apples to apples. Some of the other cities, you know, go directly to council. Some go to other departments. But the cities I looked at that were on that list that were similar to us, they use this process. So, you know, I would be supportive of moving this forward. But with one ask, I would love for staff to provide us with an annual report for showing how many permits were issued using this new discretion, what additional conditions were imposed, and whether any subsequently moved into Tier 2 or Tier 3 suspension or revocation. And then, you know, I think this will preserve the Chief's operational authority while giving the Council appropriate policy oversight. But I would love, like, maybe once a year coming, giving that to us. really think that it's important to not politicize these permits and also coming to the council flows the process down I think you know the quicker we can get these issues taken care of the better I know that when anything coming to the council we have the we have the Brown Act we have the sunshine ordinance it just kind of slows the whole process down I like Currently, the way we do it, I think from a business owner's standpoint, you know, the quicker we can resolve these issues, the better. So I'm comfortable moving forward with what we're doing and using and continue running this through the chief. So those are my comments. Thank you.

And with that, to that, I will say, and I would like to also add in it, and I would do all due respect, Council Member Burner, you mentioned it's like, it's removing the political piece of that. I mean, the chief, just to share, and just the chief's listening, this is nothing negative on you, chief, but, you know, the chief serves on the, you know, as a representative currently right now for like the chief's political, what is it, policy advisory council at the statewide level, and, you know, shows up in his own capacity to take political positions all the time. And, you know, and there are sometimes ones he takes on that we don't weigh on as a council. I know the chief also has, you know, and again, this is not negative, but he has his own established relationships with businesses, business owners across the city, you know, that we need him to do, of course, to build trust. But I think there is already an air of folks that I've what I've heard from folks is that. You know, it's hard to really just determine that there could not be favoritism or discernment on, you know, where relationships exist, even within underneath him with his own lieutenants or other folks that work directly with businesses. And so I actually don't think it removes the political in it. I think that exists by nature already. And that's why I do think that the responsibility of if there is going to be any political weight or influence or decision on, and I don't even know if it's political, but I think inherently it's the vision and future we want to have in terms of what we want to see in our communities, in our wards, or in our districts. That responsibility should lie on us. It shouldn't fall on the chief. And I think actually puts him in a much more volatile and politically challenged position. And maybe that's, you know, kind of like the hit he's willing to take if he's like, I'll be the bad guy, the martyr, if I have to make a rough decision. But I just I personally think it's a lot of power to give to a chief and then to ultimately give to a hearing officer Who doesn't maybe sometimes always gonna understand the nature and I guess if I could ask a follow-up question then to this item I goes back to the entertainment permit and what I thought was interesting is that this entertainment permits more so originally included massage pawn shops tobacco retailers tobacco retailers adult orientated businesses and more but now this is looking to include specifically storefront businesses like bars or locations or restaurants here in the downtown district, is that correct?

so the the other um businesses that were given as an example and i do i forgot to mention that sergeant karubakalis is also here with rpd and so is jacob castrayan who wrote the appeals process for the city attorney's office so if we have other questions that i can't answer then they'd be happy to to head on down so those permits types those are the other business types that that are overseen by the riverside police department by the vice unit So the entertainment permit is specifically for businesses that have open entertainment. So not necessarily all bars would have an entertainment permit, but if there's a bar that wants to have dancing or live music, that's when an entertainment permit is triggered. And so within Chapter 5.80, and that's the chapter that was adopted at the end of 2019, that has all of the requirements for when an entertainment permit is required and what qualifies as entertainment. So it's not that every storefront would need an entertainment permit, but the ones that meet the definition of entertainment would. And then the entertainment component of it would then be overseen by the RPD vice units.

So any live music, do we have a number of how many that would be citywide that are already operating under that?

I don't have that off the top of my head. We have a handful of, I don't know if Sergeant has that number, but we do have a handful of businesses that already have entertainment permits. We also have a handful of businesses that have minor conditional use permits that are waiting to transition to the entertainment permit and cannot do so at this time.

Could we get a number? Sergeant, are you able to share how many of those that are under the minor CUPs that are impending to then potentially go to entertainment permit? And I don't know if you could also speak to what does that look like in terms of workload shift for you all? Because if it's under minor CUP now, what does that shift look like from it now becoming to entertainment permit and review or whatnot?

Well, we currently have eight entertainment permits that have been issued citywide. When it comes to small bars that just offer like a jukebox that's playing music, we don't pay attention to that kind of stuff. So live music, DJs, bands, karaoke, that kind of thing would cause us to look for an entertainment permit on that specific business. As far as the NCUP goes, I'm not aware of how many businesses are in the pipeline for them to come down for an entertainment permit to the PD. As far as the NCUP goes, I'm pretty sure that most of those establishments have requirements built into the NCUP already, or they're non-conforming. So we wouldn't have to have them get the EP.

I guess that's what I'm wondering then for, because as I'm trying to understand, I feel like that's going to be a significant amount that's going to shift then to needing the entertainment permit.

There are two currently in the pipeline that are pending. And as new businesses come in, we would have them now go through the entertainment permit process as well.

And is there a cost shift for them in that?

The entertainment permit does have a fee associated with it that they would pay every two years. But I think it's probably about a wash in terms of what the cost would be for an MCUP versus a biannual entertainment permit.

How much is it now for CMCUP application? Okay.

Yeah.

I guess I'd be curious what that cost comparison is for a business.

Yeah. Let me get back to you with an accurate number because those fees did change last year.

Okay. I think, and I know that, and I know sometimes it's not always easy for our staff on the fly to have to pull up and get some of these answers. So if it makes sense for it to come back one more time here for clarifying items, and then we can... have or be then a formal motion made to go back to potentially counsel with a counsel. I think whether that's a recommendation here from this committee or if there is options that we want to send. But I will just say that I'm still personally, I think, would like to get a more clarification on what is that shift going to look like then for our police department to go from MCUP to then having to actually Because the shift in the difference here, again, when you're looking at who was falling under the entertainment permit, I mean, these are groups that I will say have had, you know, there's, when you talk about, again, massage parlors, pawn shops, tobacco retailers, adult-oriented businesses, they're falling under a very unique sector. And I understand, at least in the past, massage parlors, there was some challenges we had where we needed to have our vice unit undercovers doing heavy operations. And I think I'd also still like a little more clarification, too, on, you know, what we've seen, and I think what triggered part of this process was, you know, when a business in the downtown or potentially others, and there were, um, calls for service being placed on a business. And I guess I'd like more understanding too, on how we are ultimately determining or how our PD is determining that, you know, certain calls are being put on a business before a, you know, again, a tier is being triggered or something. Um, because I think that's where we saw a lot of Questions and valid questions come up from Planning Commission and even from outside groups is how are we assessing again? how a person is you know how a business is is ultimately being flagged and who's responsible for Certain things that are taking place and I just I guess I think about for this for specifically the downtown It's when you have a whole cluster of these folks that are all in a corner or corridor how are we determining if something's happening in the parking lot or structure that that falls on one specific business and And I think that that's where there was a lot of back and forth. Um, so, and I, I just, I, I have, I have some concerns again about how this has all kind of played out, but I think the biggest thing for me is the appeals process and where the final decision authority lies with, um, and also who, what that looks like in terms of the impact for PD and now managing what is going to be, it sounds like a much heavier workload than what you all had before.

I don't think it'll be that much of an issue for us. We have well over, I would say, 400 to 500 permits that we monitor already. And again, they renew either yearly or biannually. And we have sufficient staff back there to handle these.

Okay. I'd love to know the number, though, then, if we could see if the staff is able to get us what that transition would be or addition to entertainment permits, depending who exists now. And I'll stop there. I think Council Member Fox, you might have some comments or questions, too.

for once in my life my comments are brief so so enjoy this while you can I think just for the downtown specifically I mean I would there was a lot of it seems in my mind kind of haphazard approach I would love to have everyone on an entertainment permit you know all those individual ones just for uniformity sake and that way everyone it's same expectations it's same you know across the board it makes it also easier when when I'm working with businesses or the riverside downtown partnership is working with businesses there would be a more of an agreed upon and commonly known expectation across the board. I don't want to rehash all the stuff that brought us this point because I don't want to get traumatized. But I think that I'm fine with what was originally proposed. I do think some of those numbers would be helpful. I don't know if it's necessary. to meet again to discuss it, or if there's a way that both these things can happen simultaneously. Because some businesses are waiting. I know of at least two that are waiting on this. So this is actually keeping them in limbo until we make a decision. So every month that we delay, even though it's legitimate, I totally see that, Chair Cervantes. I just don't know if I don't want to keep these folks waiting, because some of them have been like one in particular has been waiting. Now we're going on almost six months of waiting. And so I'm just concerned about keep pushing it. But I'm fine with what was proposed previously.

So if the committee wants to move forward with as is with the original proposal, and I think what I feel comfortable with, and I wouldn't support it here today, probably as it is, exists, I'd love to hear still for a more full discussion amongst the council, because I think there was some, I was hearing a little bit of a mixed dialogue when we had pulled and raised some questions. But I think it would be helpful if we could then include in the report the items I asked about, you know, the cost shift from MCUP to the downtown permit, or I'm sorry, not downtown, but the entertainment permit in general. And then also the number of businesses that would shift to needing to go from MCUP to the entertainment permit. And what does that look like for, you know, if PD can work with staff on what does that look like in terms of the work you'll have to do then alternatively? So that would be helpful for me to be able to hopefully then come to a final voter decision. And I think hopefully helpful to some other colleagues. But I'll allow if the committee wants to make a motion.

So my motion would be, uh, move, uh, staff's recommendations, uh, keeping the administrative hearing process and, uh, running this through the chief, but with the caveat that when, when it does go to full council, that we, uh, address the, the questions raised by, uh, church.

So the motion is second and we'll take a vote. Go ahead, please.

Yes.

Vice Chair Falcone?

Yes.

Chair Cervantes? I'm going to be a no, which I appreciate the caveat to include the items, but for now, as of now, I'm not comfortable with number one, but look forward to the discussion with council and getting some more information in the report. But thank you all for your being here today and for helping to be available and to come back for the discussion. Thank you.

Okay, so motion passes with Chair Cervantes voting no.

Thank you so much, and thank you to my colleagues for working with me on that. All right, wonderful. So with that, I believe I'm just looking ahead. I think this is the final item we have for the day, and just seeing if there's a legislative update.

No update.

Okay, wonderful. And do we have any items for future land use committee? Okay, nope, nope. We're plenty busy as it is. All right, thank you, everyone. Have a wonderful rest of your day. See you soon.