1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4A Sidewalk (Pier) Vending
EXTERNAL
Summary: Favor expanding an uncompromising plan to succeed.
The narrative and photos from the staff are clear and disturbing. (Analogous narratives and photo evidence could be generated throughout the City.) Do what it takes to succeed, however loudly some might complain, and then apply the model to Downtown, the Promenade, and the City’s parks. Don’t linger on these; we are nearly past the tipping point.
Peter DiChellis, unaffiliated moderate
Santa Monica ‐ 90403
Item 4.A
02/22/22
1 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gilbert Saucedo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 6:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting 2/22/22 - Public Comment on Agenda Item #4A
EXTERNAL
Honorable Councilmembers,
My name is Gilbert Saucedo. I am an attorney in private practice in the City of Los Angeles, and copresident of the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles. I have been involved with street vendors issues in the City of Los Angeles for several years, and recently in the City of Santa Monica as well.
Upon reading the Staff Report on the Citywide Response to Sidewalk Vending, it is clear to me that this report lacks sufficient input from street vendors and advocates who work directly with these vendors. The approach taken by the City of Santa Monica is bound to fail because it relies too heavily on law enforcement. It seems as if the City of Santa Monica has declared war on Latino food vendors.
The Joint Law Enforcement Taskforce has taken a very aggressive approach to attempt to intimidate street vendors. In doing so, the City is in essence criminalizing street vending, in violation of state law.
Some of our attorneys and volunteer law students with the National Lawyers Guild have been monitoring the situation closely at the Santa Monica Pier, and have documented numerous acts of law enforcement agents that are immoral, go against public policy, some go against local and state law, or otherwise violate vendors’ rights. Some of these acts include: racial profiling; criminalizing food vending; imposing criminal charges that are not supported by the facts; trashing vendors’ food and property; confiscating property without just cause and without giving the vendors a receipt; imposing exorbitant fines for street vending and issuing multiple fines for a single offense; oppressive parking enforcement practices targeting vendors; aggressive enforcement tactics causing physical injury; and the list goes on.
A better approach is to work collaborative with the street vendors to find solutions. This approach is more likely to render a sustainable long-term solution, than any short-term gains that can be achieved by heavy-handed law enforcement. This type of collaboration is likely to result in a win-win solution, where the City can accomplish its public health and safety objectives and the vendors can safely and securely make an honest living providing a valuable service to the community without the fear of heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.
Respectfully,
Gilbert Saucedo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GILBERT SAUCEDO
714 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Telephone (213) 748-0808
Fax (213) 493-6575
Item 4.A
02/22/22
2 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
2 **This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of The Law Office of Gilbert Saucedo. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
3 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 11:22 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4 - Support of continuing Unlicensed Vendor Task Force
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
This is to ask you to continue to support and fund the Unlicensed Vendor Task Force until the issue is under control.
Since the Task Force has been operating it has helped to nearly eliminate all the issues the residents have had in dealing with the unlicensed vendors. There has been a big reduction in the dumping on the beach, reduction in trash cans overflowing, reduction in parking lot trash, reduction in trash left in resident driveways on PCH, and reduction of vendor support/supply trucks parked on PCH.
Unfortunately, we need to keep the enforcement going as the number of unlicensed vendors will increase as the weather improves and the number of visitors increases. Even if they become licensed there needs to be strict enforcement of the City’s vendor rules and codes, and the includes no vending on Ocean Front Walk and Bike Path.
The Residents are requesting again to have the Ordinance (item 7a) on combustible fuels cover all beach parking lots.
Most of the food prep and cooking is done in the parking lots before they move their carts to the Pier deck. There is a safety issue in having large propane burners cooking corn and other food items next to parked cars and having grease and oil on the ground of the parking lot that could catch fire. There is no need to have unpermitted tailgating BBQs in the parking lots with any form of fuel being used, so please extend the area of the fuel ordinance to include all beach parking lots.
Thank you
Santa Monica Sunset Beach Track Residents
David Newberg
Denise Daniels
Ron Miller
Holly Stabile
James Graf
Tim Noonan
Christina Noonan
Andre de Montesquiou
Mark Robbins
Kurt Schwengel
Jonathan Brandler
Paul Schneider
Jennifer Olvera
Andrew Worswick
Ted Romano
Item 4.A
02/22/22
4 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
2 Jon Spica
Jenny Morant
Item 4.A
02/22/22
5 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
February 22, 2022
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 4 – Citywide Response to Sidewalk Vending
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We wish to thank you for your efforts around public safety, especially at the Pier.
The new Pier Task Force immediately addressed the public safety concerns for our guests, workers, and permitted vendors. The collaboration across departments and with the County Department of Public Health has been an incredible success. A big thank you and tremendous appreciation to the individual task force members. We believe the team comprised of police and fire departments, code enforcement and public works personnel should be permanently assigned to pier and beach areas moving forward. It is imperative the City continues to fund permanent personnel for this task force.
As a working group of residents, and business owners/operators, our number one priority is to protect our most valuable assets and guest experiences in the City. That includes ensuring the Pier, beaches and surrounding neighborhoods are safe.
We believe our collective financial stability hinges on a safe and clean city that welcomes visitors and allows local business people to thrive in a fair and equitable economy.
We look forward to an ongoing dialogue with you about our City’s future.
Sincerely,
Laurel Rosen Michael Ricks
President/CEO 2021-22 Board Chair
Business Strike Team Members
Greg Morena Len Lanzi
Co-Chair Co-Chair
Judy Abdo, resident
Pam O’Connor, resident
Item 4.A
02/22/22
6 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
And representatives of the following:
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
Fairmont Miramar Hotel & Bungalows
Main Street Business Improvement Association
Montana Avenue Merchants Association
Macerich/Santa Monica Place
Pacific Park on the Santa Monica Pier
Santa Monica Firefighters, Local 1109
Santa Monica Peace Officers Association
Santa Monica Pier Lessees Association
Santa Monica Pier Corporation
Santa Monica Travel & Tourism
The Independence
Item 4.A
02/22/22
7 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Item 4.A
02/22/22
8 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Item 4.A
02/22/22
9 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
2021
GUILD REPORT:
The City of Santa Monica’s Treatment of
Low-Income Street Vendors
PREPARED BY THE LOS ANGELES CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER, ESQ.
AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF CAMERON CHAPMAN-PINTO
AUGUST 2021
* * *
TEL: (213) 381-3246
Item 4.A
02/22/22
10 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Memorandum to Relevant Municipal Authorities........................................................................... i Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ ii I. Barriers to Food Permitting, Health & Safety ...............................................................1 II. Unlawful Confiscation of Vendor Equipment & Goods................................................2 III. Parking Enforcement Tactics Used to Deter Vendors...................................................3 IV. Insufficient Notice & Multiple Violations Per Citation.................................................4 V. Aggressive & Punitive Enforcement Practices..............................................................5 VI. The Stories & Voices of Street Vendors in Santa Monica.............................................6 Table of Authorities.........................................................................................................................9 Appendix of Figures ......................................................................................................................10 Item 4.A
02/22/22
11 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
To: Santa Monica City Attorney George Cardona, Director of Code Enforcement Sharon Guidry, Santa Monica Police Department Interim Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks, City Manager Anuj Gupta, and distinguished members of the Santa Monica City Council.
From: Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq.
Date: August 21, 2021
Re: The City of Santa Monica’s Treatment of Low-Income Street Vendors.
Dear Mr. Cardona, Ms. Guidry, Ms. Seabrooks, Mr. Gupta, and Council members, The National Lawyers Guild and our community and legal partners who work with the street vendor community wish to help you address the issues raised in this document. Some changes were made since we last brought our concerns to you in previous meetings and discussions. However, we would like to review any policy documents that reflect the changes that have been made or newly implemented so that we can also assist with community education and outreach. We also wish to discuss the enclosed policy recommendations with your team.
Very Truly Yours,
____________________________
Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq.
National Lawyers’ Guild
Item 4.A
02/22/22
12 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Street vendors greatly contribute to the economic and cultural vitality of the Santa Monica Pier and beach community. Public safety on and around the Pier is paramount to all concerned, including the street vendor community. The National Lawyers Guild, Public Counsel, and the ACLU have been monitoring the treatment of street vendors in Santa Monica since the passage of SB-946 (Lara), which decriminalized street vending, effective January 1, 2019. The iconic fruit stands, food carts, and other amenities vendors provide to beachgoers are quintessentially Californian indulgences, cherished by visitors and locals alike since well before their decriminalization. In view of this fact, the legislature passed SB-946 with the express intent of promoting the “entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities” that street vending entails for low-income, immigrant communities and the unique touristic charm famous of our state.
In April 2019, the City of Santa Monica adopted Ordinance No. 2607, establishing a comprehensive sidewalk vending program, the first provision of which similarly declares, “Sidewalk vending fosters vibrant public spaces and promotes a diverse and inclusive local economy.” The City’s “Vending Ordinance” explicitly decriminalizes sidewalk vending, as required by SB-946. Accordingly, Santa Monica Municipal Code § 6.36.111(a) provides, “Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of this Code.” However, almost immediately after the ordinance took effect, SMPD and Code Enforcement began a concerted effort to oust vendors from the Pier with practicesthat have effectively continued the criminalization of street vending. Such tacticsinclude:
1. Charging vendors with multiple administrative violations for one offense, resulting in costly fines upwards of $1,000, and often on more than one occasion in one weekend.
2. Arresting vendors on or near the Pier and charging them with criminal violations of Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.55.050 – maintenance of beach accessway.
3. Aggressive parking enforcement and ticketing practices at Beach Lot 1, designed to prevent the entry of large vehicles used by vendors to move their goods and equipment.
4. Unlawful confiscations resulting in considerable losses to the modest earnings of street vendors, many of whom depend on vending as their family’s only source of income.
5. Excessive and punitive enforcement practices, e.g., chasing vendors up the PCH or across multiple city blocks to cite or arrest them, notwithstanding the validity of their permits, for resisting unlawful confiscations or committing minor zoning offenses.
Without comprehensive reforms, Santa Monica street vendors will continue to suffer undue economic and psychological hardship in the course of their much beloved, albeit exacting, work.
Likewise, we appreciate the breadth of challenges faced by SMPD and Code Enforcement officers tasked with administering the City’s complex and voluminous vending regulations. We encourage the City to work with street vendors and their advocates to address the issues discussed in this report, which needlessly strain vulnerable families in their efforts to lawfully participate in the local economy and the time, energy, and resources of the municipal enforcement apparatus. We also want to thank you for taking the time to better understand the realities facing Santa Monica street vendors and for your consideration of the policy recommendations presented in this report.
It is our hope that, together, we may finally bring Santa Monica street vendors into the fold of the prosperous community that they have indispensably helped to create but struggle to benefit from.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
13 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
The extensive measures required by the Department of Public Health (“DPH”) to obtain a food vendor permit in Los Angeles County create steep financial and logistical barriers to compliance by sidewalk food vendors (“food vendors”). Of an estimated 10,000 food vendors working in the City of LA, only 165 have received permits.1 Santa Monica and other localities experience similarly low rates of food permitting. This is due in large part to bans in the CA Retail Food Code (“CRFC”) on the street-side slicing of fruit, reheating of pre-cooked items, and home preparation of food for sale.2 Additionally, the DPH requires food-carts to meet a dizzying array of design specifications, e.g., integrated multi-compartment sinks, plumbing, ventilation, refrigeration, and food storage,
3 that make a theoretically compliant food-cart too large and/or heavy for use by vendors.4 These requirements translate to a total cost upwards of $10,000 for a DPH compliant food-cart.5 Additionally, DPH regulations make food vending virtually impossible without access to a commissary, or “rental kitchen,” the total annual cost of which exceeds $5,000 on average. 6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Furnishing the appropriate space and permitting for a recurring farmers’ market event near the Pier on weekends, whereby food vendors can collectively access DPH compliant food preparation and storage amenities in lieu of individually cost-prohibitive compliance with food-cart design specifications and commissary requirements.
2. A second option, which was suggested in a July 2019 memo to the Santa Monica City Council, implementing a pilot “special vending district” that will enable vendors to participate in the development of specialized regulations that enable some limited vending at the Pier within a separate set of rulesthat are responsive to unique safety considerations.7
3. Policy adaptations related to food preparation, storage, and food-cart requirements that reduce overhead costs and other barriers to individual compliance by food vendors.
NOTE: This will also require modest changes to state law (California Retail Food Code). 1 CASSIDY BENNETT ET AL., Unfinished Business: How Food Regulations Starve Sidewalk Vendors of Opportunity and What Can Be Done to Finish the Legalization of Street Food, 2021, http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/1647.pdf 2 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 113984(a-f) (West 2016) (“Adequate and suitable counter space shall be provided for all food preparation operations. …food preparation shall be conducted within a fully enclosed food facility. All food shall be thawed, washed, sliced, and cooled within an approved fully enclosed food facility”). 3 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, CNTY. OF LOS ANGELES, CAL., Mobile Food Facility Plan Check Guidelines (2021) http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/docs/permit/mobile-food-facility-plan-check-guidelines.pdf 4 BENNETT ET AL., supra note 1, at 6.
5 SCOTT CUMMINGS & DOUG SMITH, Hands Off Our Taco Carts! Fix Laws to Protect Them., LA Times, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-09/small-legal-changes-would-end-harassment-of-los-angelestaco-carts 6 Id.
7 ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ET AL., Improper Sidewalk Vending Enforcement Practices, 2019, Memo 2019 Street Vending.pdf
Item 4.A
02/22/22
14 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
The routine, unlawful confiscation of vendor goods and equipment pervasively undermines the normal operation and financial security of street vendors in Santa Monica. Current municipal regulations prohibit vendors from leaving their equipment unattended or with a non-owner, and from leaving their food, goods, or merchandise in the care of an individual without a vending permit.
8 Under these pretenses, vendor equipment may be deemed “abandoned” or in use without valid permitting and subject to confiscation.
9 Such determinations are often reached regardless of
whether a vendor is in the process of loading/unloading their set-up, using the restroom, or has left their equipment/goods in the care of their spouse, child, or vending partner(s). However, City policies also require that Code Enforcement officers wait at least 30 minutes10 and make reasonable efforts to locate the owner(s) of “abandoned” items prior to confiscation.11 In frequent disregard of this protocol, Code Enforcement officers systematically abuse the pretense of “abandonment” to make confiscations that would never be warranted otherwise. Illegal confiscations have taken place under all of the following circumstances: 1) ahead of the required 30 minutes; 2) where the known owner(s) were reasonably nearby; 3) where permitted non-owners were in brief possession of a vending partner’s items, e.g., while the owner was in the restroom; 4) where owners returned mid/post-confiscation, presented themselves to agency personnel, but release of their property was either denied or conditioned on the acceptance of an/multiple exorbitant violations(s); 5) where the owner(s) were in the process of loading/unloading their setups from their vehicles; and 6) where misdemeanor obstruction of beach facility access was the pretense for confiscation, a practice which amounts to the recriminalization of street vending.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. An immediate moratorium on confiscations made by Code Enforcement officers under all of the specified circumstances and the generally abused pretense of “abandonment.”
2. Stricter oversight policies for Code Enforcement officers, e.g., mandating video documentation of the 30-minute “abandonment” period legally required for confiscations and the standardization of disciplinary action for breaches of protocol by agency personnel.
3. Identification of DPH approved locations for vendors to store their carts at no charge.
4. Formalization of a system for filing complaints against Code Enforcement personnel for breaches of protocol, in lieu of the current “internal review” process conducted by “HR,” which provides no transparency or follow-up with vendors who submit complaints. 8 SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.3(a) (2020) (“Affirmative disavowal of ownership of goods, food, or merchandise in response to an enforcement officer’s question as to ownership may be a basis for a finding of abandonment and grounds for impoundment. The placement of goods, food, or merchandise in the care of another does not constitute abandonment, but may lead to impoundment under Section 6.4 …if the person taking care of the materials is engaged in vending and lacks a vending permit”). 9 SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.36.112(a) (2019) (“The City may impound food, goods, and/or merchandise that are abandoned on public property or displayed, offered, or made available for rent or sale by a vendor who does not possess a valid City vending permit”). 10 SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.2(a) (2020) (“Food, goods, or merchandise shall be considered abandoned after an enforcement officer observes such materials unattended on public property for a period of at least 30 consecutive minutes”).
11 SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.2(b-c) (2020) (“An enforcement officer may impound such abandoned materials only after the enforcement officer has made a reasonable attempt to locate the owner of such materials…any person claiming ownership of the unattended materials may recover and retain such items on site for vending purposes upon providing a valid vendor permit”).
Item 4.A
02/22/22
15 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Santa Monica selectively enforces restrictions on “oversized” vehicles to prevent vendors from parking and selling near the Pier. Vehicles exceeding 8 feet in height or width12 are required, in theory, to park in designated lots half a mile or farther from the Pier.13 However, the use of Pieradjacent lots by RVs and tour buses is widely tolerated, while vendors are relentlessly ticketed for parking in these areas.
14 City officials maintain that these “oversized” restrictions apply only to “commercial” vehicles, despite posting no signage to this effect.15 Contrarily, the municipal handouts commonly used to direct oversized vehicles to the farther designated lots make explicit reference to RVs,16 while special permits are afforded to commercial buses for the use of pieradjacent lots. In effect, “oversized” parking restrictions only apply to vendors, uniquely relegating them to parking lots far removed from the Pier, to and from which the transportation of their cumbersome equipment is made difficult or impossible. Additionally, parking enforcement staff maintain a deceptive practice of allowing vendors to purchase Pier-adjacent parking at RV pricing ($60), only to then target them for any number of violations shortly thereafter ($60-70). 17 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Removal of parking restrictions and enforcement practices that uniquely target vendors.
2. Designation of vendor loading/unloading zones within reasonable proximity of the Pier. 12 SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.12.870 (2018) (“No person shall park any commercial vehicle on a public street or alley in a residential district as established by Article 9 of this Code, except when actively engaged in commercial activities, in the event of an emergency, or for the purpose of loading and unloading, if any part of such commercial vehicle, together with fixtures or property thereon, if any, measures more than eight feet in width or eight feet in height”).
13 SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.04.150 (2012) (“No person shall drive a large vehicle as defined in Section 3.12.870 onto any public parking lot, unless the person has a permit issued by the City. This Section does not apply to any large vehicle actively engaged in business deliveries to or pick up from merchants maintaining an established place of business adjacent to such parking lot”). 14 FIGURE 3. Targeted Parking Tickets Citing Identical Same-Day Offenses and Non-Payment Despite Valid Display, (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 11).
15 FIGURE 1. Signage Promulgating Size Restrictions with No Reference to the Alleged “Commercial” Proviso, (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 10).
16 FIGURE 2. Municipal Handout Directing RVs and Other "Oversized" Vehicles to Designated Lots, (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 10).
17 FIGURE 3., supra note 14, at 11.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
16 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
The unwarranted harassment and prosecution of street vendors for dubious vending offenses occurs regularly in Santa Monica. Vendors who have paid licensing fees for the sale of merchandise may wait weeks or even months to receive formal documentation by mail, during which time they cannot display the required permits or cart decals while vending. Additionally, if property is confiscated for lack of a valid a permit, the process for obtaining returns is poorly or never communicated by Code Enforcement. Policies requiring the on-site provision of an impound receipt detailing the circumstances and items pertaining to a confiscation, along with instructions for property returns,18 are either ignored entirely or enforced without regard for the low rate of literacy in the vendor community.19 Without adequate provision of this information, vendors cannot properly identify or solicit the return of confiscated items, causing many to lose weeks or months of essential income due to the prolonged seizure of their equipment. The unlawful disposal of non-perishable goods by Code Enforcement can generate further irrecuperable losses. 20 Additionally, the common Code Enforcement practice of charging multiple violations relating to a single offense is economically devastating to vendors. The fines associated with one such violation can alone exceed $1,000. While SB-946 makes explicit the facts that: 1) late fees cannot be applied to violations of local vending ordinances,
21 and 2) vendors have the right to request an
ability-to-pay determination at any point after citation, both matters are almost never verbalized to vendors.
22 A singular notice of the right to fine reduction is included, in English text, on citations for vending offenses. Finally, many vendors have begun to receive citations in the mail for offenses they were not aware of committing. State law explicitly requires the direct attachment of similar citations to offender vehicles in order to preempt this very due process issue. 23 Vendors
cannot be fairly charged with offenses they were never aware of committing, nor can they be expected to pay costly fines otherwise entitled to reduction, for mere lack of the ability to read.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Training to bring officers into conformity with the normative precepts of due process.
2. Creation of a helpline for vendors to receive bilingual assistance with interpreting the reasons, obligations, and appeals process for citations and other literacy-contingent notices.
3. Direct SMPD officers to immediately cease issuing misdemeanors to sidewalk vendors for obstructing beach facility access - SMMC § 4.55.050, and dismiss all related charges. 18 SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.4(b) (2020) (“At the time of impoundment, the enforcement officer shall provide to the vendor a receipt that includes the date and time the materials were impounded and a complete description of the impounded materials… The receipt shall also include instructions on how to reclaim impounded materials”).
19 FIGURE 4. Literacy-Contingent Notice: Impound Receipt (A) & Instructions for Returns (B), to be Issued On-Site. (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 12).
20 SANTA MONICA, CAL.,SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.5 (2020) (“The City may immediately dispose of impounded materials that are perishable and the storage of which raises health or safety concerns”). 21 CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(c) (West 2018) (“Failure to pay an administrative fine … shall not be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor. Additional fines, fees, assessments …shall not be assessed”). 22 CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(f)(1) (West 2018) (“The local authority shall provide the person with notice of his or her right to request an ability-to-pay determination… The person may request an ability-to-pay determination at adjudication or while the judgment remains unpaid, including when a case is delinquent”). 23 CAL. VEH. CODE § 40202(b) (West) (“The notice of parking violation shall be served by attaching it to the vehicle either under the windshield wiper or in another conspicuous place upon the vehicle so as to be easily observed by the person in charge of the vehicle upon the return of that person”).
Item 4.A
02/22/22
17 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
The use of excessive force, by SMPD and Code Enforcement officers alike, is a common source of mental and/or physical trauma for much of the vendor community. Many vendors can readily produce documentation of such mistreatment and/or arrests, spanning as far back as a decade.24 The various harms spawning from such clashes have ranged from minor bruising to the alleged chokehold of a pregnant vendor, in full view of the public, early in the Summer of 2021. Of note, the Staff Report on SB-946 expressly precludes “the imposition of criminal penalties against pedestrian vendors operating on public sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and within parks.”25 Additionally, intracommunity clashes between vendors have dramatically increased, due in large part to scarcity of space,
26 among other conditions perpetuated by rigid municipal policies and enforcement practices. While territorial dynamics have always existed within the vendor community, tensions have escalated considerably in Santa Monica. Some have been misled by Code Enforcement personnel to believe that other vendors refuse to obtain the proper permitting that licensed vendors spend extensive time, energy, and resources obtaining. While this is partly true of some food vendors, it is not for lack of willingness to obtain permits (see “Barriers to Food Permitting, Health & Safety,” in Section I, p. 1), and noncompliance is far less often the case with respect to vendors who only sell merchandise. Likewise, the spreading of misinformation about the perceived financial success of vendors by Code Enforcement, as well as the use of a public hotline for reporting vendor offenses, have further exacerbated hostilities within and towards the street vendor community. Without swift changes, the volume and severity of such hostilities only stand to escalate in Santa Monica.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Funding or hiring of a socio-linguistically competent “community organizer” tasked with:
A) Mediating contentions between vendors, in lieu of Santa Monica Police and/or Code Enforcement officer responses to such matters.
B) Assisting vendors with navigation of the complex and bureaucratic licensing process.
C) Ensuring proper regulatory notice and compliance.
2. Expansion of spaces in which vendors can operate legally, viably, and with less competition.
3. Reduction of barriers related to the cost and ease of process for obtaining vending permits.
4. Culture, sensitivity, and de-escalation training for SMPD and Code Enforcement officers.
5. Formalization of a personnel complaint process for vendors alleging mistreatment by SMPD and Code Enforcement officers (see also “Policy Recommendations,” Section II, p. 2).
6. Improved accountability mechanisms and disciplinary procedures for antagonistic SMPD and Code Enforcement officers (see also “Policy Recommendations,” Section II, p. 2) 24 CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(d)(1) (West 2018) (“A violation of a local authority's sidewalk vending program… or a violation of any rules or regulations adopted prior to January 1, 2019, that regulate or prohibit sidewalk vendors in the jurisdiction of a local authority, shall not be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor, and the person alleged to have violated any of those provisions shall not be subject to arrest except when permitted under law”); see also CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(a)(1) (West 2018) (“A violation of a local authority's sidewalk vending program that complies with Section 51038 is punishable only by [administrative citations]”). 25 ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ET AL., Improper Sidewalk Vending Enforcement Practices, 2019, Memo 2019 Street Vending.pdf
26 FIGURE 5. Literacy-Contingent Notice, Explicit Zoning Restrictions for Vendors in Santa Monica (Exhaustive), (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 13).
Item 4.A
02/22/22
18 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
A. Citing vendors by mail violates their due process rights: Mr. A informed us he received a citation by mail for $450.00 from Code Enforcement for vending in a parking lot near the Santa Monica Pier. However, Mr. A was not vending by the Pier that day. He was vending on Colorado Ave. A Code Enforcement officer claimed another vendor had taken a photo of Mr.
A vending by the Pier, which was the basis for the citation received by mail. Mr. A was never shown the photograph. Mr. A felt he was falsely accused and targeted by Code Enforcement.
Mr. A states that Code Enforcement has threatened to revoke his vending permit even though he has duly paid for his licensing. Mr. A feels that Code Enforcement officers show favoritism to certain vendors who provide information like the home addresses of other street vendors for targeted enforcement purposes like mailing citations and not directly ticketing the vendors. As mentioned in Section IV, this practice perpetuates due process issues that state law has specifically sought to prevent.27
B. Unethical enforcement tactics: Mr. B states that Code Enforcement officers do not treat all vendors equally. When one particular Code Enforcement officer is issuing citations, he is selective about who he cites even when two vendors are in the same location and selling the same items, i.e., liable for identical offenses. A Code Enforcement officer told Mr. B, “I won’t give you a ticket if you give me the names and addresses of other vendors who may be illegally vending.” Mr. B. said, “No, I won’t do that.” Mr. B states that a lady who sells hot dogs gave the Code Enforcement officer the names and addresses of other vendors. Now she never runs or moves when the Code Enforcement officer comes by to give the vendors tickets.
C. Illegal property confiscations and unwarranted arrest of a minor: Mr. C was selling waters, sodas, and corn on his eighteenth birthday near the bottom of the stairs next to the Santa Monica Pier. He left his little wagon with sodas and waters on the sand unattended for about two minutes while going to and from the car. When he returned, he saw a Code Enforcement officer going through all the drinks. Mr. C. told the Code Enforcement officer the drinks were his. The officer said, “No, these are mine now.” Mr. C explained that he only left the drinks for two minutes and that he tries to make a living by selling them. The Code Enforcement officer called SMPD, and two police officers showed up. Mr. C explained that he only left his drinks for two minutes; however, all the drinks in sealed bottles and containers were confiscated. Two coolers were confiscated and never returned. The value of what he lost was about $500.00. The next day Mr. C was vending again, and two of the same Code Enforcement and SMPD officers walked directly up to him and placed him under arrest. He was taken to jail, fingerprinted, and photographed.
28 He spent 6 hours in jail before being released to his parents. His pushcart and I-Phone were confiscated and never returned.
D. Multiple fines for one vending offense: Ms. D received a citation for one alleged street vending violation, but the citation charged her with three Municipal Code violations totaling $775.00. Ms. D states that she was pulling her cart containing “Churros” along Ocean Front Walk when she was stopped by Code Enforcement. She says she was not selling when she… 27 CAL. VEH. CODE § 40202(b) (West) (“notice of parking violation shall be served by attaching it to the vehicle”). 28 CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(d)(1) (West 2018) (“A violation… shall not be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor … shall not be subject to arrest except when permitted under law”) (Emphasis added).
Item 4.A
02/22/22
19 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
…was stopped. She was charged with SMMC 5.08.370 - failure to comply with County Health, SMMC 6.36.110 - failure to comply with vendor regulations, and SMMC 6.36.040 - restricted vending time and locations. Ms. D cannot afford a fine of $775.00 when she barely makes enough money to get by. These excessive fines are unwarranted and do not comply with SB946, the state law which outlines the fines and fees permissible for street vending violations.
E. Aggressive enforcement tactics causing injury: Ms. E and Mr. E are street vending partners who sell merchandise and sodas near the entrance to the Santa Monica Pier in Palisades Park.
Both vendors are licensed to sell merchandise. However, despite making repeated phone calls and email correspondences, for over a year now, the Business Licensing Unit of the Santa Monica Finance Dept. has yet to issue a paper copy of the license to be displayed on their vending cart. When this incident occurred, Ms. E only had an email verification of her license from the Finance Department. While Ms. E and an older vendor, Ms. O, were selling near the entrance to the Pier, SMPD and Code Enforcement officers approached the two vendors. Being that she is both illiterate and a non-English speaker, Ms. E became fearful that she would lose her cart and items for lack of the ability to articulate the delayed receipt of her valid permitting.
Both vendors fled and were chased by the officers about two blocks to a parking lot where Ms.
O fell to the ground, injuring herself. Ms. E was then ordered by officers to pull her large cart up onto a sidewalk, thereby straining both a back injury, which she sustained during a prior and similarly unwarranted chase by officers, and a shoulder condition for which she has undergone multiple surgeries. Both vendors were then transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital. The vendors were each charged $1,758.00 for the ambulance. Ms. E was charged $924.00 for the emergency room visit while Ms. O was able to pay her bill with her insurance.
F. Confiscation during unloading from parking lot: Mr. and Ms. F were in the process of unloading their goods and equipment from a beach-side parking lot when their ice chest, wagon apparatus, and umbrella were confiscated by Code Enforcement, along with the various sealed beverages contained for sale. Ms. F had lowered the items from her vehicle and left them in the care of Mr. F while she momentarily returned to their beach-side vending site to continue set-up. Two Code Enforcement officers, accompanied by SMPD, confiscated the items from beside the vehicle, initially alleging that they were “abandoned” for over 30 minutes. During the return of these items several weeks later, concerns were raised to Code Enforcement about the habitual interception of vendor materials while loading/unloading from their vehicles. The officers present for the return alleged that they personally witnessed that the items were “abandoned,” i.e., left unattended next to the couple’s vehicle for over 30 minutes. Both Mr. and Ms. F deny leaving the materials unattended for a continuous 30 minutes. The officers alternatively maintained that Mr. F had been vending from the unattended materials in the parking lot, and claim to possess video documentation of both “abandonment” and vending from the materials in the parking lot. Mr. F denies vending from the materials in the parking lot and insists that the alleged documentation will reflect that fact. The officersfurther maintain that Mr. F denied ownership of the materials on video when confronted, as they were technically the pertinences of his partner, Ms. F. However, Mr. F denies this, and encourages the release of the alleged video documentation. Upon learning of the confiscation, Ms. F quickly returned to present herself to the officers attempting to haul off their items. The officers refused to release the items to Ms. F without ID and proof of ownership, and further conditioned the return of the items on Ms. F’s acceptance of multiple exorbitant… Item 4.A
02/22/22
20 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
…violations related to obstruction, vending in a parking lot, and abandonment. Ms. F refused to accept the alleged violations and her items were ultimately confiscated. Neither a receipt nor any instructions for return of the confiscated items were given to Ms. F at any point.29 G. Oppressive parking enforcement practices targeting vendors: Mr. G is one of countless vendors who have been targeted with relentless tickets for parking their “oversized” vehicles in Pier-side lots. The tickets issued to Mr. G have included same-day citations for identical offenses and citations for invalid/non-payment within minutes of arriving, while Mr. G was in the process of paying at a parking kiosk or had already displayed valid payment on the dashboard of his vehicle.
30 Like other vendors in his position, Mr. G possesses extensive video documentation of the selective enforcement of “oversized” vehicle restrictions with respect to RVs and commercial tour buses, neither group of which have ever been issued a citation for similar violations during the ticketing rounds in which he was targeted and of which he documented. For reference, Mr. G and his brother (two vehicles) have together received at least 18 parking tickets in the 7 weekends spanning from June 26th to August 8th of 2021.
H. Illegal property confiscation under the pretense of criminal misconduct: Ms. H reports being the frequent target of rigid enforcement practices and harassment by one Code Enforcement officer in particular. On one such occasion, Ms. H’s food cart was taken from her hands by said officer while she traversed the restricted area around the entrance to the Pier on her way home from the beach. This specific confiscation raised a host of substantive and procedural concerns: 1) Ms. H’s items were not unattended, nor was their owner unidentifiable, as she was physically holding them when they were confiscated; 2) Ms. H was transporting her vending materials to her vehicle on her way home from a day of vending; and 3) Ms. H was criminally charged, as a minor, with misdemeanor obstruction of beach facility access, which SB-946 expressly excludes from the legal pretenses for confiscation of street vendor property (see footnotes 23-25, pp. 4-5). Moreover, Ms. H reports at least five additional confiscations by Code Enforcement of property belonging to other vendors in her family, all within the last three months and effectuated under similar circumstances, i.e., intercepted near the entrance to a beach parking lot or other restricted area while coming from or going to the beach for vending purposes. The property associated with at least three of these five related confiscations has yet to be returned, over two months later and at least one month from the point of most recent solicitation for their return. Ms. H and her family posit that Code Enforcement personnel regularly “camp” near restricted areas to seize the property of vendors that mistakenly operate near or briefly pass through such areas with their equipment. Note, the zoning restrictions31 specified in the “Santa Monica Vending Program Regulations” require vendors to observe an untenable number of vague parameters that are unduly broad in nature. 32 29 SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.4(b) (2020) (“At the time of impoundment, the enforcement officer shall provide to the vendor a receipt that includes the date and time ... and a complete description of the impounded materials [and] instructions on how to reclaim impounded materials”). 30 FIGURE 3. Targeted Parking Tickets Citing Identical Same-Day Offenses and Non-Payment Despite Valid Display, (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 11).
31 FIGURE 5. Literacy-Contingent Notice, Explicit Zoning Restrictions for Vendors in Santa Monica (Exhaustive), (see “Appendix of Figures,” Section VIII, p. 13).
32 CAL. GOV. CODE § 51038(b)(1-4) (West 2018) (“A local authority shall not require a sidewalk vendor to operate within specific parts of the public right-of-way, except when that restriction is directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns. …a local authority may prohibit stationary sidewalk vendors in areas that are zoned exclusively residential, but shall not prohibit roaming sidewalk vendors”) (Emphasis added).
Item 4.A
02/22/22
21 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
State Statutes:
1. CAL. GOV. CODE § 51038(b)(1-4) (2018) ……………………………………………..…..8
2. CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(a)(1-3) (2018) ....................................................................... 4, 5
3. CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(c) (2018). .................................................................................. 4
4. CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(d)(1) (2018) ...................................................................... 4, 5, 6
5. CAL. GOV. CODE § 51039(f)(1) (2018)....……………………………………….………....4
6. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 113984 (2016). ............................................................... 1
7. CAL. VEH. CODE § 40202(b) ........................................................................................... 4, 6 Local Ordinances:
1. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.04.150 (2012).............................................. 3
2. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.12.870 (2018).............................................. 3
3. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 4.55.050 (2012)…………………………...ii, 3
4. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 5.08.370 (2011)……………………………...6
5. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.36.110 (2019)……………………………...6
6. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.36.111(a) (2019)…………………………...ii
7. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.36.112(a) (2019) ..........................................2
8. SANTA MONICA, CAL., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.36.040 (2019) ..…………………………….6 Local Regulatory Materials:
1. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, CNTY. OF LOS ANGELES, Mobile Food Facility Marking Guide, 2021, http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/docs/permit/mobilefood-facility-plan-check-guidelines.pdf...............................................................................1
2. SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.2(a) (2020). ............ 2
3. SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.2(b-c) (2020).......... 2
4. SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.3(a) (2020) ............. 2
5. SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.4(b) (2020)......... 4, 8
6. SANTA MONICA, CAL., SIDEWALK VENDING PROG. ADMIN. REG. § 6.5 (2020).................. 4 Institutional Publications:
1. ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, NATIONAL LAWYERS' GUILD - LOS ANGELES, PUBLIC COUNSEL, Improper Sidewalk Vending Enforcement Practices (2019) Memo 2019 Street Vending.pdf………………………………………....…….…………1, 5
2. CASSIDY BENNETT ET AL., Ufinished Business: How Food Regulations Starve Sidewalk Vendors of Opportunity and What Can Be Done to Finish the Legalization of Street Food, 2021, http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/1647.pdf...............................1 Journalistic Publications:
1. SCOTT CUMMINGS & DOUG SMITH, Hands Off Our Taco Carts! Fix Laws to Protect Them., LA Times, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-09/small-legalchanges-would-end-harassment-of-los-angeles-taco-carts................................................. 1 Item 4.A
02/22/22
22 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Figure 1. Signage Promulgating Size Restrictions without Reference to the Alleged “Commercial” Proviso.
Figure 2. Municipal Handout Directing RVs and Other "Oversized" Vehicles to Designated Lots.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
23 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Figure 3. Targeted Parking Tickets Citing Identical Same-Day Offenses and Non-Payment Despite Valid Display.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
24 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Figure 4. Literacy-Contingent Notice: Impound Receipt (A) & Instructions for Returns (B), to be Issued On-Site.
A
B
Item 4.A
02/22/22
25 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Figure 5. Literacy-Contingent Notice, Explicit Zoning Restrictions for Vendors in Santa Monica (Exhaustive).
Item 4.A
02/22/22
26 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Item 4.A
02/22/22
27 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Item 4.A
02/22/22
28 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Item 4.A
02/22/22
29 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
February 22, 2022
Santa Monica Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Santa Monica City Council Members
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 4: Request to Continue to Support a Clean, Safe and Equitable Santa Monica Dear Honorable Himmelrich and City Council Members,
We commend the City’s recent actions towards addressing the escalating situation at the Santa Monica Pier and keeping public safety a priority. Each of you have visited the Pier and have spoken to many of the permitted vendors, employees and family-owned businesses about the unsafe conditions that had been growing worse.
Your recognition of the seriousness of the situation resulted in the launch of the best multi-departmental task force over the past six weeks we have ever seen, which has dramatically made a difference in the efforts of safety and accessibility as well as helped to improve impacts to the environment.
The shopkeepers, licensed and permitted vendors operating on and around the Pier do not want to share their names publicly for fear of retaliation and physical threats from specific unpermitted vendors. Two of the Pier vendors who have operated legally for over 10 years have shared that they feel that progress has made over the last six weeks, and has made the Pier “feel more like the old Santa Monica Pier again because it’s safer and a fun place to bring families and kids” and believe “more work is needed to keep this up.” (See addendum page 3)
We are asking you, our City Council, to continue allocating resources to protect our Pier and surrounding beaches to ensure they are equitable, clean, accessible and safe for all people:
employees, vendors, residents and visitors.
1. Extend the Task Force with a Continuation of Budget Allocations: Employees, residents, and vendors have all witnessed the positive transformation at the Pier when there is a presence of Code, Fire, Police, Public Works, and County Health on the Pier and surrounding areas. The results have improved public safety as there is no longer vendors blocking pedestrian access, fire lanes, or business entrances. There has been a reduction in fights and other dangerous activities such as illegal combustible open flames. However, we have seen some vendors returning to the Pier when the Task Force is not present.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
30 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
We are concerned that we have not yet hit our traditional busy Spring and Summer seasons when millions of people will descend onto the Pier and surrounding areas every day. It is essential that the City have a plan to keep employees, vendors, residents and visitors safe and we believe a key component of this plan is an extension of the Pier Task Force.
2. Increase Access & Equity: We request that you include direction to staff to further engage with local stakeholders to review its vendor and business permit process to determine ways that it could increase accessibility and equity for interested vendors.
3. Support Public Safety Efforts: We continue to ask the City to continue to actively enforce to stop all unsafe and dangerous activities that puts other vendors, employees, residents and visitors at risk.
We appreciate the approach of SMPD, SMFD, Public Works, and Code in education first and quick action on any dangerous activity.
4. Advocate for State Legislative Changes: We ask the City to support the work of Senator Ben Allen with his newly introduced legislation, Senate Bill 1290, aimed at balancing equity and access for sidewalk vendors with local control around public safety. We also ask the City to ask for specific amendments in Senate Bill 972 (Gonzalez) that has many positive provisions aimed at streamlining health permits for sidewalk vendors, but still needs clear recognition that local control is preserved around public safety.
5. Educational Workshops & Streamlining County Health Permits: We ask the City to continue to hold educational workshops on accessible locations in Downtown and near the Pier for interested vendors to secure a City permit and County health permit. We also ask the City to request the County to determine a more streamlined and affordable process to secure health permits.
We believe the Task Force and the incredible work of police officers, fire, code enforcement, public works, the City Attorney’s office and the county health department have been a critical first step. We encourage this work to continue and Santa Monica continues to be a leader that priorities public safety, equity and accessibility for all.
Thank you,
Misti Kerns, President, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism Laurel Rosen, President, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Jim Harris, Executive Director, Santa Monica Pier Corporation Mackenzie Carter, Interim Executive Director, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
Hunter Hall, Executive Director, Main Street Business Improvement Association Sharon Town Lee, Chair, PICO Improvement District
Kara Taub, Chair, Montana Avenue Merchants Association
CC: David White, City Manager, City of Santa Monica
Anuj Gupta, Deputy City Manager, City of Santa Monica
Item 4.A
02/22/22
31 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
Addendum
Pier Vendors
Two licensed and permitted vendors who has been operating on the Pier for over ten years shared what the impact of the Task Force has been:
Pier Vendor 1:
“We are a very diverse group of vendors here on the Pier, we are very inclusive and it’s a testament to how much the Pier and the City care about supporting local businesses like mine so we have what we need to be successful and thrive. Vending on the Pier has changed my life and my family’s life for the better and we are so grateful to be part of the Santa Monica Pier family. We are thankful for the work that City and the Pier Task Force has been doing to keep everyone safe and healthy.
We feel that progress has been made but more work is needed to keep this up and to make sure that there are consequences for people who break the rules.” – Pier Vendor, over 10 years Pier Vendor 2:
“I am grateful for the opportunity to operate my business in such a cool and unique place [the Pier] and hope that we can continue for long into the future. We are grateful for the progress the Task Force has made in enforcing the rules and we clearly see the change. It feels like the old Santa Monica Pier again because it’s safer and a fun place to bring families and kids. Legal vendors like us have done everything we can to comply with city, county, health, and other regulations because we know our license and livelihood is at risk if we don’t. We need to stay strong and united and show that there is a right way to run a business and a wrong way, and the right way is always the best for everyone. All of the vendors and pier tenants are so supportive, and the task force is really helpful in every case. We’re happy for the Task Force’s work and enthusiasm to keep everyone on the right track but there is more work to be done.” – Pier Food Vendor, over 10 years # # #
Item 4.A
02/22/22
32 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Randi Parent <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 2:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 4A
Attachments: Letter to City Council 2-21-22.docx
EXTERNAL
February 21, 2022
Dear Honorable Himmelrich and City Council Members,
As a member of the Board of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, I have closely followed the illegal vending situation on the Pier.
I am so appreciative of the efforts of the City Council, Santa Monica Police Department and Code Enforcement, and the Santa Monica Fire Department to address the health and safety issues illegal vending have caused.
Continuing to maintain this presence on the Pier ‐ at least through the Spring and Summer seasons ‐ will produce obvious benefits for the Pier’s employees, tenants, and the millions of visitors who come to our iconic Pier. I respectfully request that the Task Force continue its work on the Pier through Labor Day.
In addition, the Task Force is providing valuable education that should result in a number of these illegal vendors going through the proper channels in our City, to obtain permits and allowing them to further their livelihood safely in Santa Monica. This is a path I fully support.
Sincerely,
Randi Parent
Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board member
A copy of this letter is attached as well. Thank you.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
33 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Susan Hojer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 2:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: tonight's meeting agenda item 4
EXTERNAL
February 22, 2022
Santa Monica Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 4: Request to Continue to Support a Clean, Safe and Equitable Santa Monica Dear Honorable Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I want to thank you for your attention to this matter and your support in keeping Santa Monica safe and clean for everyone. As a resident of Santa Monica and someone who lives across the street from the beach, I have seen firsthand the impact that the Task Force has made to improve public safety and cleanliness around the Santa Monica Pier. I am pleased with the collective work of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Police Department, Santa Monica Fire Department, and Code Enforcement towards improving public safety on the Pier and surrounding beaches.
When the Pier Task Force is present, there is a significant change in how safe we feel in our neighborhood. It is crucial that the City extend the Pier Task Force and put a plan in place that will create long-lasting change in our community. During the short time the Task Force has been in place, we have seen an incredible difference in the cleanliness and safety of the area and that’s why I’m asking the Council today to approve the extension of the Pier Task Force to continue this momentum and ensure Santa Monica continues to be a safe place to live, work and visit.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
34 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
2 Thank you for your time and attention,
Susan Hojer
Santa Monica Resident for 23 years
Thank you,
Susan Hojer
[email protected]
Item 4.A
02/22/22
35 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 4 - Support of continuing Unlicensed Vendor Task Force
EXTERNAL
February 22, 2022
Santa Monica Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 4: Request to Continue to Support a Clean, Safe and Equitable Santa Monica Dear Honorable Himmelrich and City Council Members,
We thank the City of Santa Monica for your recent actions towards addressing the need for public safety and accessibility at the Santa Monica Pier and surrounding beaches. This has resulted in an effective multi-departmental task force over the past six weeks which has made a difference in the efforts of safety and accessibility.
We are asking the City to continue allocating resources to protect our Pier and surrounding beaches to ensure they are equitable, clean, accessible and safe for employees, vendors, residents and visitors.
1. Extend the Task Force with a Continuation of Budget Allocations: There has been a positive transformation at the Pier when there is a presence of Code, Fire, Police, Public Works and County Health on the Pier and surrounding areas. It is essential that the City have a plan to keep employees, vendors, residents and visitors safe and we believe a key component of this plan is an extension of the Pier Task Force.
2. Increase Access & Equity: We request that you include direction to staff to further and engage with local stakeholders to review its vendor and business permit process to determine ways that it could increase accessibility and equity for interested vendors.
3. Support Public Safety Efforts: We continue to ask the City to continue to actively enforce to stop all unsafe and dangerous activities that puts other vendors, employees, residents and visitors at risk. We appreciate the approach of SMPD, SMFD, Public Works, and Code in education first and quick action on any dangerous activity.
4. Advocate for State Legislative Changes: We ask the City to support the work of Senator Ben Allen with his newly introduced legislation, Senate Bill 1290, aimed at balancing equity and access for sidewalk vendors with local control around public safety. We also ask the City to ask for specific amendments in Senate Bill 972 (Gonzalez) that has many positive provisions to amend the state law aimed at streamlining health permits for sidewalk vendors but there still needs to be recognition that local control is preserved around public safety.
5. Educational Workshops & Streamlining County Health Permits: We ask the City to continue to hold educational workshops on accessible locations in Downtown and near the Pier for interested vendors to Item 4.A
02/22/22
36 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22
2 secure a City permit and County health permit. We also ask the City to request the County to determine a more streamlined and affordable process to secure health permits.
We believe the Task Force and the incredible work of police officers, fire, code enforcement, public works, the City Attorney’s office and the county health department have been a critical first step.
It’s amazing to be able to participate in and watch multiple public departments come together to help pursue a just and safe cause. Please help ensure their achievements and initiatives continue to receive support! Thank you,
Jason Berkowitz
Partner in multiple Santa Monica Businesses including restaurants, and member of the SM Chamber of Commerce.
Item 4.A
02/22/22
37 of 37 Item 4.A
02/22/22