Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, August 23, 2022 (part 6 of 6)

designed for school performances/presentations (not for classroom instruction1), and
 needed school administration offices to be built above the newly enclosed lunchroom.

One of the adjacent neighbors filed this appeal. The appeal hearing is a quasijudicial proceeding governed by Zoning Ordinance Chapters 9.41 and 9.43, as well as Zoning Ordinance Section 9.37.130. Carlthorp is entitled to a fair hearing and a decision based on the evidentiary record.

In voting to approve these applications, Commissioner Fonda-Bonardi thoughtfully explained:

One of the reasons I'm approving this . . . is that this is an attempt to do more with less. The fact that they're building stuff underground is very expensive. The fact that they're putting stuff up in the air; they're using a roof in a very active way. That's part of our general ecological approach to things, trying to do more with less. Otherwise, we need to spread out more and more and more and more. We're beyond that
point. So, this is kind of trying to fit in as tight as we can and mitigate the impacts. That's what this is about. Do more with less, but mitigate the effects on everybody around it.

The approved permits will not expand student enrollment, will not add any new classrooms, will not increase school functions, and will not increase the size of the faculty. None of the existing buildings is being demolished--the subterranean performance room will be excavated beneath the outdoor playfield. A minor modification is needed for merely 135 sf of extra lot coverage in the R2 zone (i.e., 45.29% as compared with 45%). (SMMC § 9.43.020(B)(3).)
The existing parking, classrooms, student enrollment, playfield, and building design were approved in 1996 (DRP 95-003; CUP 95-012; Variance 95-022) when the size of the campus was expanded onto the adjoining lot (after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake resulted in the demolition of an apartment building that was red-tagged).

As an outgrowth of that expansion, Carlthorp School funded the installation of doublepaned windows in the Coral Gables apartment building next to the School’s new 1 There will remain an existing multi-purpose room used for classroom instruction purposes.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
25 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 3 ends

playfield. Those apartments continue to be protected by double-paned windows. The appellant resides in one of those apartments.

New Roof Deck Play Court. We all are keenly aware of the benefits of outdoor play space at schools for our youth. To help minimize sounds of school children playing on the new roof deck, the deck will be encircled with an 8’ tall parapet wall for the neighbors. The height of the parapet wall does not exceed the 30’ height limit for the R2 zoning district. And consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, there will be netting installed above the parapet wall to catch stray balls.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the parapet wall’s sound attenuation, an extremely well-qualified acoustics engineering firm (http://www.veneklasen.com/) 2 has
calculated the potential acoustical impact of the outdoor roof deck to ensure that the school use will not exceed the Noise Ordinance sound limits for residential zones. (SMMC § 4.12.060.) A copy of Veneklasen’s acoustical report is attached to the Staff Report.

There is no acoustic study that contradicts or challenges Veneklasen’s professional report.

New Underground Multi-Purpose Room. Carlthorp School’s new Multipurpose Room, as the name implies, is a room to be used for various functions that will benefit students, faculty/staff, and parents. From September through June (the academic school year), it will serve the following non-classroom purposes:
 Musicals
 Student art exhibits
 Indoor play area on rainy days
 Indoor climbing wall for PE
 Student dismissal staging area on “rainy days”
 Faculty and staff meetings
 Kindergarten graduation
2 Founded in 1947, Veneklasen Associates is one of the largest acoustical consulting firms in the United States. Their technical expertise has been developed through the design of thousands of buildings worldwide, including for civic and governmental agencies, courthouses and public safety, education (K-12, colleges and universities), transportation (including airports and rail), museums and cultural centers, hotels/resorts, studios and entertainment, residential, medical/hospitals, places of worship, etc. They are imminently qualified in this field of expertise.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
26 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 4 ends

 Talent show
 Special guest speakers for school-wide assemblies
 Parent meetings
 CPR training for employees
 Professional development for faculty
 Meeting space for small groups
 After-school clubs
 Assembling area for community service events
 Orchestra practices
 Theatrical practice and performances
The availability of school auditorium/presentation space in this new subterranean room has become increasingly important to Carlthorp as the School’s enhanced extracurricular programs and educational presentations continue to evolve. Currently, Carlthorp’s smaller existing MPR only accommodates a limited number of students at any one time and therefore functions more like a classroom and counts as a classroom for purposes of parking calculations. With the new Multipurpose Room, Carlthorp will continue to host the same school performances and activities on its campus, but in quarters better suited for such presentations. The new Multipurpose Room will not have any impact on the quantity of either the students or faculty attending school, while accomplishing much needed flexibility for extra-curricular scheduling across all gradelevels.

The new Multipurpose Room will realize a more functional presentation layout, and will not resemble a classroom. The existing multipurpose classroom used for such presentations is not configured for viewing school plays, theatrical performances and other similar presentations. With children as young as six years old performing in the existing room, it is difficult for parents in the back of the room to see all of the children.

When the new Multipurpose Room is built, the school will finally have a proper setting for conducting school performances, assemblies and multi-grade level activities.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID ITS JOB WELL

AND PROTECTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Commissioner Paster correctly explained that approving the Carlthorp applications allows the City to impose more protections for the surrounding residential neighborhood around this elementary school that has remained in this location for 80 years:

I hope that the neighbors appreciate that what Ken [Kutcher] said was right, which is that you are better off having these Item 9.A
08/23/22
27 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 5 ends

conditions documented in this CUP. That makes them more enforceable and holds them more accountable. And I hope [everyone] appreciate[s] that.

Indeed, to protect the neighborhood, the Planning Commission imposed 81 conditions of approval, including:

The School’s maximum student enrollment is capped at 280 children (i.e., generally 40 students per grade). (Condition 4)
32 bicycle parking spaces must be provided on campus. (Condition 7) Non-school activities are prohibited on the campus. (Condition 4) The new underground multipurpose room is to be used as a performance space and may not be used as simply another classroom. (Condition 17) The 8’ tall parapet wall around the roof deck must be solid/ nontransparent on the west and east ends to protect the privacy of the residential neighbors. (Condition 18)
Decorative murals, artwork or architectural details should be explored with the ARB for the parapet wall enclosing the playcourt, especially on the south facing wall. (Condition 18)
Any lighting installed for the rooftop playcourt must be shielded so as not to produce spillover onto adjacent properties, and such rooftop lighting must be turned off when the play court is not in use. (Condition 18) The School is limited to no more than 18 Special School Events, and no more than 6 Special School Events can occur after school hours without the Planning Director’s approval. (Condition 4)
All invitations for Special School Events at the School must encourage walking, biking, ridesharing and use of public transportation. (Condition 6) Valet parking (for cars and bicycles) must be provided for any Special School Event expected to draw more than 150 vehicles (probably once or twice a year: Grandparents Day and possibly graduation). Valet parking must only use one side of the street. (Condition 6)
Item 9.A
08/23/22
28 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 6 ends

A Parking and Loading Operations Plan (“PLOP”) for the School must be submitted to the City Mobility Division for review and approval. (Condition 5)
The School’s outdoor speakers are to be used primarily for emergency purposes, as well as the daily morning assembly. (Condition 9) The outdoor speakers facing the Goral Gable apartment building will be removed as a result of enclosing the lunch area. (Condition 8) The outdoor speakers will no longer be used for afternoon student pickup; instead, walkie talkies will be used to coordinate student departures. (Condition 10)
Another sound study will be done as soon as the new rooftop play court is constructed and in use. If the new sound measurements are greater than expected, additional sound protection measures will be implemented. (Condition 11)
The School will be required to abide by a Transportation Demand Management Plan approved by the City. (Condition 16)
A Construction Management Plan that includes outreach to area residents and commuters must be reviewed and approved by the City. (Condition 14)
Without violating fire and building codes, the exterior stairwell along the west elevation would be best if it can be screened with a green wall/landscaping. (Condition 19)
A neighborhood liaison will be designated to address any neighborhood concerns related to the school. The liaison’s contact information will be distributed to residents within a 300’ radius as soon as the rooftop play court is finished and annually thereafter. (Condition 12) Commissioner Paster also pointed out the benefits to everyone of Condition 12 in particular:

And I do really want to encourage that the person who is the [School’s] new community liaison rep, that the neighbors reach out to that person, that they express their concerns Item 9.A
08/23/22
29 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 7 ends

and open the lines of communication and really try to get the things fixed that you have [any future] problems with.

Without the project approvals, these neighborhood protections will not be in place for this existing school. We urge the City Council to affirm the Planning Commission approval and deny the lone appeal.

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES OF CARLTHORP SCHOOL
Carlthorp School is a longstanding educational institution in this community.

Carlthorp School is invested in instilling lifelong core values in its students. Carlthorp School’s approach to student education is imbedded in its mission statement:

Mission Statement
Carlthorp School provides a strong academic foundation in a diverse and nurturing school community that emphasizes respectful values, responsible work habits, and excellence in order to prepare our students to achieve their highest potential in education and life. https://www.carlthorp.org/about-us/about-carlthorp
Carlthorp is also fully committed to the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion rests in every aspect of our community and institution and is the perfect space for our students to learn how to navigate the world beyond Carlthorp. No matter who you are, it doesn’t happen without each member of our community. We actively seek opportunities for our community to join us in openly sharing their authentic self and the experiences they bring that will continue to make our school a beautiful and diverse place where everyone belongs.
https://www.carlthorp.org/school-life/diversity-equity-and-inclusion

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS HAVE BEEN

THOROUGHLY ADDRESSED
The Planning Commission did its best to address concerns and objections raised by public comments. Concerns that have been expressed are almost exclusively related to noise, parking, traffic, and special events. Those concerns will be addressed by the following:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
30 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 8 ends

A. Noise.

Concerns were raised regarding anticipated sound of students using the outdoor play space on the rooftop along the rear alley. Carlthorp and its architect and acoustics consultant has taken special care to minimize the sound that would otherwise travel to the neighboring properties. The primary protection will be encircling the rooftop play court on all four sides by a solid, noise-blocking parapet wall of at least 8 feet in height.

This solid perimeter wall is akin to the concrete block wall along the west side of the School’s outdoor playfield.

Additionally, the surface of the play court on the roof will be composed of noiseattenuating material (such as a durable rubber surface), and padding will be installed underneath the play court surface to further absorb noise and vibration. This absorption surface is akin to the School’s artificial turf ground level playfield. These physical attributes are being implemented to address concerns related to noise.

Also, the roof deck has been located at the rear of the property along the alley.

And given that the size of the student body will not be increasing, the addition of this outdoor space will disperse the students across more outdoor space, thereby reducing the concentration of their sounds of play and outdoor communication. This will be of overall benefit to the residential neighbors, consistent with the dictates of the Planning Commission’s 1995 conditions of approval #57:

57. The project applicant shall disperse play groups as much as possible to disperse noise sources.

With these measures, a professional noise impact assessment conducted by the acoustical consulting firm Veneklasen Associates concluded that:

Based on study, with such a perimeter wall, the noise levels predicted for the rooftop play court area will not exceed the noise limits of Santa Monica Noise Ordinance at all sensitive receptor residential locations. In Veneklasen’s professional opinion the incorporation of a barrier that is 8 feet tall will ensure full compliance with the residential limits imposed by the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance. (Veneklasen Report,
p. 7.)
Furthermore, in approving the outdoor roof deck play court, the Planning Commission imposed Condition 11 requiring the School to obtain a second acoustical study once the play court is completed and in use to confirm the conclusions of the original study and provide additional noise mitigation if the conclusions turn out to be Item 9.A
08/23/22
31 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 9 ends

inaccurate. The additional mitigation would need to be proposed within 60 days and implemented within 120 days of the follow-up study.

Additionally, in relation to the 1998 expansion of the School campus, Carlthorp has already paid for the installation of noise-blocking dual pane windows at the Coral Gables apartment building immediately to the west of the School Campus. These windows will further help prevent student activity from the play court from disturbing tenants of the building closest to the roof deck.

Carlthorp and the professional acoustical engineers are confident that the perimeter parapet wall and absorbent flooring on the School’s roof deck will ensure that student activity on the rear roof deck does not disrupt the surrounding neighborhood, but in the event that noise issues do unexpectedly arise, Carlthorp has made a binding commitment to promptly and thoroughly address them in compliance with Condition 11.

B. Parking.

Other concerns have focused on street parking in the area immediately surrounding the School. It is important to keep in mind that the School is not demolishing any of its existing buildings. Instead, it is excavating for a basement beneath part of its outdoor playfield, it is enclosing its lunchroom and needed adding administrative office above the enclosed lunchroom, and it is adding an outdoor deck above its rear bank of classrooms. There is no opportunity to add more onsite parking.

As Commissioner Fonda-Bonardi noted, the school is doing its best to make productive and efficient use of all of its campus.

One of the reasons I'm approving this . . . is that this is an attempt to do more with less . . . That's what this is about.

Do more with less, but mitigate the effects on everybody around it.

The School has been in this location since 1942. The Planning Commission granted the School a parking variance in 1996. Those facts are not changing. Without rebuilding its entire campus, the School has no ability to add additional onsite parking.

Instead, despite not being compelled to do so by the Municipal Code’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for developers, the School has worked with the City’s Mobility Division to come up with an enhanced Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM”) to reduce its car trips as much as possible.

The School’s new TDM plan includes numerous measures intended to reduce the number of employees who travel to campus by car. These measures include incentive programs that will be implemented at considerable expense to the School. The Item 9.A
08/23/22
32 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 10 ends

TDM plan will reduce employee car travel by requiring the school to provide the following:
 Free transit passes for School employees
 A local hiring program
 A parking cash-out payment for School employees who do not drive cars  A 2.0 average vehicle ridership (AVR) target for school employees (instead of the current 1.6)
 Transportation information and orientations for new employees  32 bicycle parking spaces
 Lockers/shower for school employees
 Emergency rides home for employees who bike to work in the event of inclement weather
 Bike repair kits
 Partnership with Santa Monica SPOKE to provide an annual bike education day for employees and students
The School’s commitment to abide by the TDM plan was formalized by Special Condition #16 of the Planning Commission’s approval.

C. Afternoon Dismissal.

Traffic congestion during the School’s afternoon pickup has also been raised as something that needs improvement. Although the campus improvements have nothing to do with afternoon dismissal, the approval of the improvements provided the Planning Commission with an opportunity to request further improvement to the afternoon pick up procedures, and Carlthorp has agreed to do so. Most significantly, Carlthorp has agreed to incentivize carpooling and thereby reduce the number of vehicles picking students up at the School campus. By far the best way to incentivize carpooling is to allow parents with carpools to be the first to pick up their students, so that is what the School will do.

Specifically, per the new TDM Plan:

To incentivize families to combine rides and trips, the School has agreed to prioritize cars picking up multiple students riders to appeal to the convenience and savings of time for those who do so. This carpool priority will help reduce the number of cars lining up for pickup and further minimize neighborhood impacts. Nothing will motivate a parent like saving them time. So, when School dismissal begins at 3:00 p.m., high-occupancy vehicles will be allowed first in line to pick up their students. Those will be cars that are picking up at least 3 students. All other vehicles will need to wait.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
33 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 11 ends

The TDM plan also includes carefully considered procedures for afternoon pickup intended to reduce wait times and ensure that driveways and alleys are not blocked by queued vehicles. School faculty and staff will manage the staging and flow of parent vehicles in the neighborhood by positioning themselves at strategic locations and serving as traffic flow monitors during daily pickup times. The monitors will be responsible for ensuring that no one’s driveway is blocked during the pickup queuing.

And instead of using the School’s loudspeaker system to announce the names of students whose rides are waiting, Staff will coordinate pickups using walkie talkies with earpieces to reduce noise impacts.

Finally, all dismissal procedures and expectations will be clearly communicated to parents. Parents who violate procedures will be disciplined.

D. Special Events.

Like any school, Carlthorp holds various special events for students and parents.

These events provide opportunities for learning, sharing cultural experiences, family bonding, student presentations and talents, updates on curriculum, and celebration of accomplishments and the joys of education. These include the School’s Halloween Parade, African American History Celebration, Lunar New Yar Celebration, La Fiesta Latina, International Day, ArtSmart Day, S.T.E.M. Day, Grandparents Day, Kindergarten Graduation, 6th Grade Graduation, and All-School Talent Show.

The Planning Commission imposed Special Condition #4 to address these concerns, limiting the School to a maximum of 18 special events per year with no more than 6 of these events being held after school hours. Project Specific Condition #4 also requires the school to provide notice of special events to its immediate neighbors.

Additionally, Project Specific Condition #6 addresses parking and traffic issues related to special events by requiring:
 Automobile valet for larger special events
 The use of the School’s parking lot for special event parking  All valet parking to be restricted to one side of the street  Advance notification to attendees regarding limited parking availability to encourage carpooling, etc.

These limitations and requirements will ensure that the School is able to hold a reasonable number of special events, which are crucial components of student development and school life, without undue disruption to the surrounding community.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
34 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 12 ends

Also, the new Multipurpose Room will allow more of these activities to occur indoors.

To further and more generally address all neighborhood concerns, the Planning Commission also imposed Project Specific Condition #12, which requires the School to appoint an on-site contact person who will serve as a neighborhood liaison to address any concerns that arise in the community. Immediate neighbors of the School will provide annual written notification of the liaison’s contact information.

APPELLANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
The Appellant alleges a litany of zoning code violations and other offenses by the Applicant. The Appellant’s allegations are too numerous, and in many cases too spurious to address one-by-one. As confirmed by both City Staff and the Planning Commission, the School and its proposed improvement project will be in compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the pertinent requirements of the prior 1996 STOA, and all other applicable regulations.

Carlthorp’s original Planning Commission hearing date was delayed for months so that City Staff could look into the litany of zoning code violations alleged by the appellant. As explained in the Staff Report, his allegations were referred to City’s Code Enforcement Division, which declined to open an investigation.

The Appellant’s remaining objections were communicated to and, where warranted, addressed by City Staff, by the Planning Commission and by Carlthorp in good faith. As explained point by point in Staff Report Attachment E, none of the appellant’s remaining allegations has any merit. This elementary school has been a fixture in this neighborhood for eighty years.

CONCLUSION
Carlthorp School has been located at its current location for almost 80 years.

During this time, the School has enjoyed warm and positive relations with many of its neighbors, and the School continues to have a strong and respectful relationship within the community.

It has been 25 years since the School last updated its campus. The School campus requires upgrades to enable Carlthorp to continue providing a high quality, modern educational program to its K-6 students. These upgrades will not increase student enrollment.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
35 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Santa Monica City Council
February 19, 2022

Page 13 ends

The School has engaged in productive community outreach and worked diligently to craft a project that is responsive to all legitimate concerns. Except for the minor modification to parcel coverage, the project is fully compliant with all applicable code requirements. Carlthorp’s planned improvements will provide: (i) enhancements that benefit the education of its elementary students (with no increase in enrollment), and (ii) community benefits that will mitigate neighborhood disruption and address the concerns raised by neighbors. The appellant’s views of the School and its plans are skewed and do not generally represent the views of much of the surrounding community.

The City Council should deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission’s near-unanimous approval of the project. We would like to acknowledge City Staff’s substantial work and thorough analysis of the issues on appeal.

Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
cc: David White
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Stephanie Reich
Regina Szilak
Joe Lawrence
Heidi von Tongeln
Ken Parr
Tarrah Beebe

F:\WPDATA\22270\Cor\CC 2022.02.19.docx
Item 9.A
08/23/22
36 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 9.A
08/23/22
37 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 9.A
08/23/22
38 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) Item 9.A
08/23/22
39 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
40 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
41 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
42 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
43 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
44 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
45 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
46 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
47 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
48 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
49 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
50 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
51 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
52 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
53 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
54 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
55 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
56 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
57 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
58 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
59 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
60 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
61 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
62 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
63 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
64 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
65 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
66 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
67 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
68 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
69 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
70 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
71 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
72 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
73 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
74 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
75 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
76 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
77 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
78 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
79 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
80 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
81 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
82 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
83 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
84 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
85 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
86 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
87 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
88 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
89 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
90 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
91 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
92 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
93 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
94 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
95 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
96 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
97 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
98 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
99 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Item 9.A
08/23/22
100 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission Item 9.A
08/23/22
101 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification 1 Vernice Hankins
From: diana gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David Martin; Douglas Sloan; David White Subject: Diana Gordon letter supporting 8.23.22 Carlthorp appeal (Council Agenda #9A)

EXTERNAL
I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

Summary: On the record before you, Carlthorp has failed to manage its off-site employee parking in a residential neighborhood when school is in session so that street parking is reasonably available to the surrounding residents who need it. It has only 32 permitted parking spaces on-site for its 80 current employees, the majority of whom park on nearby streets, negatively impacting the surrounding community.

This employee neighborhood street parking is in violation of findings that were made as to parking that form the basis of its existing CUP and a specific CUP condition in the 1996 Statement of Official Action (STOA). Affected residents unable to find parking near their homes seeking relief have been rebuffed by the school and ignored by the City. This 1996 STOA violation must be remedied before the Council can consider any additional permit to expand school operations. (STOA, Validity of Permit, #31).

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under-utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.
 Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
102 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2  The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.  Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

Given all this, the Council cannot make the critical finding to support the permit – that the expansion would be consistent with the General Plan, and compatible, not detrimental, to the neighborhood.

A solution, suggested by neighbors, and frequently used by businesses in situations like this, is for Carlthorp to establish off-site parking at a lot or underutilized facility with a bus or shuttle service to campus for staff and visitors, for weekday use and special events.

Before any permit can be granted, additional reasonable, enforceable restrictions as to off-site employee parking, noise, and special events need to be imposed or there will be ongoing complaints following this expansion when additional neighborhood detriment occurs (discussed below).

A. Carlthorp is in ongoing violation of the 1995 CUP findings and conditions as to employee parking being on-site
A central finding supporting the 1995 CUP to allow the school to expand in a residential neighborhood was that 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet its post-expansion needs and relieve employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The key representations Carlthorp made as to employee parking that caused the CUP to be granted are:
1) with 32 employees, 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet the school’s needs; 2) the surrounding neighbors and streets would not be burdened by the expansion because employee parking would be on-site; and
Item 9.A
08/23/22
103 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3 3) as a result, the expansion would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and fit in harmoniously with the neighborhood.

The staff report supported the expansion claiming it would benefit and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because on-street parking would no longer be a problem:
“On-site parking is being provided, albeit in a tandem fashion, which will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by removing parking that currently occurs on-street in the vicinity of the school and shifting it into the off-street spaces.” (6/12/96 staff report, pp-6-7) These representations and assurances became findings upon which the CUP permit was granted:

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 bi-weekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

B. The current staff report is wrong when it states at page 12 that Carlthorp has complied with all conditions of its CUP.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
104 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 The report fails to address any of the CUP or Variance findings mentioned above relating to parking restrictions or the related, relevant Condition that establishes that Carlthorp is non-compliant and cannot apply for another CUP until it resolves its employee off-site parking.

Conditions of approval are the guts of enforcing the CUP permit. Conditions are mandatory so that the activity – here the expansion: 1) “would not be detrimental to the public interest, … convenience, or general welfare….” and 2) would “minimize the affect [sic] of the use on adjacent neighbors.” (CUP Finding #10).

Carlthorp is in breach of Miscellaneous Condition #25 which specifically states that it shall not operate its business in a way that is detrimental to surrounding residents as to parking and noise. “The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.” (emphasis added)
Carlthorp currently has 250% more employees: 80 employees, not 32. The existing staff levels and their parking needs do not bear any relation to those upon which the CUP was granted. This results in its operation being conducted in a manner detrimental to surrounding neighbors as to parking. It also violates the assurances given, rendering the findings hollow.

Specifically, this 250% growth and its operation in general causes its staff and others related to the school to park in the neighborhood—making street parking increasingly scarce —to the detriment of its resident neighbors in violation of Condition #25.

Carlthorp is well aware of its violation and its ongoing negative impact on its neighbors. The record before the Planning Commission includes comments from many nearby frustrated residents who say they have raised their parking difficulties with the school and asked the school to take remedial action. Nothing has been done.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
105 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 5 “In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” (emphasis added) On this basis alone the Council must deny the school a new permit at this time.

Condition #25 also applies to noise. Many nearby residents have written about excessive playground noise emanating from Carlthorp, interfering with residents’ daily activities and peaceful enjoyment of their residences.

II. The school’s business is no longer consistent with the General Plan because its current operation, including number of employees, is not “compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.”
This appeal triggers de novo review, which means that the Council must review the existing CUP not only for compliance, but also must review the current school operation as to whether the key neighborhood compatibility requirements under our General Plan are currently being met.

Moreover, because this is a CUP, the General Plan requires an “additional level of review and a higher threshold of approval” to ensure that a commercial use in a residential neighborhood is compatible with it and with the goals and intents of the General Plan.” (Staff Report, p10).

So even if limiting employee parking on-site hadn’t been in the CUP and Variance findings and conditions, which it was, Council needs to look to the General Plan neighborhood parking policies and goals, not referred to in the staff report, to determine whether the school is currently operating in such a way that is incompatible with the General Plan.

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 6 The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

The city regularly requires businesses operating in commercial districts to provide suitable leasing or other arrangements for employee parking so nearby residential neighborhoods aren’t adversely impacted. Carlthorp employees who can’t park on-site could be shuttled to work from a nearby commercial parking venue. This suggestion, made to Carlthorp by its impacted neighbors has been ignored.

Here, Carlthorp has a higher duty which the city should enforce because it is operating a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yet it has not taken reasonable steps to procure off-site parking for its employees, or otherwise discourage or prevent the wide-scale off-site employee parking caused by its 1996 expansion.

Until it does, its current operation is incompatible both with its surrounding neighborhood and with the General Plan so no additional CUP is warranted or should be granted until the incompatibility is redressed.

B. The record before the Planning Commission is replete with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from the school operation Over 250 pages of comments were received by the Planning Commission in 2020 – the vast majority from residents who opposed giving any further permit for Carlthorp to expand and/or wanted it to be compelled to rein in the street parking and noise first. The comments were from property owners adjacent to the school and across San Vicente in multi-family residential units at 415, 423, 425, 427, 430, 435, 437, 441, 445, 447, 449, 450, and 451 and 3 owners of residences south of the school on Georgina.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
107 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 7 “As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.”
“As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.”
This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

C. Carlthorp’s proposed TDM Plan (if its CUP is approved on appeal) is aspirational and does nothing to solve the street parking burden or discourage employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed, generic TDM plan as part of the record before the Council is aspirational: it has no teeth, no enforcement, or penalties to discourage its employees from parking in the neighborhood. It doesn’t set any cap on the number of employees who could park off-site or offer any off-site parking solution for its employees or visitors outside of this alreadt dense residential area.

The plan does not specify how many employees or part-time staff, parents, visitors, or guests the school operation currently serves. It is not tied to the number of the school’s existing employees who park off-site, its ongoing violation, or acknowledge the neighborhood detriment. It doesn’t offer anything concrete in the way of curing its excessive street parking.

It does not contain firm solutions routinely carried out by businesses that lack sufficient parking who can’t park in residential neighborhoods, such as leasing off-site, under-utilized parking facilities with shuttle transportation to and from the school.

Even this non-solution TDM Plan is predicated on Council granting its CUP. Otherwise, the school has no plans to rein in the excess off-site parking until it is compelled to do so.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
108 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 8 Carlthorp has turned a blind eye to the neighborhood problems caused by its operation since its 1996 expansion. The Council must require the school to adopt a reasonable parking plan with enforcement rights that redress the burden to the neighborhood at this point or otherwise greater violations causing neighborhood frustration and ongoing complaints lie ahead.

D. The staff report is not correct that “no new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal” (p.9).

First, as already discussed, this staff report doesn’t address the ongoing parking impacts that are roiling the neighborhood and therefore doesn’t recommend any workable solution. The report only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation (i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood.

Second, 2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for Council to grasp the magnitude of new parking impacts that would occur.

Carlthorp proposes to hold up to 18 “Special School Events” on campus every academic year for more than 50 adult attendees, not including any school employees or staff. Moreover, 6 of these events can be held as evening events without Planning Director approval but more can be requested. There is no limit on events with less than 50 outside attendees.

As to the more than 50 attendees, no arrangement for parking is provided for them. So, it highly probable that Carlthorp parking will occur on all surrounding streets beyond those streets being used now.

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

Third, the Valet parking proposal is unreasonable on its face. Valet parking is only required for “Special School Events “expected to draw more than 150 vehicles” with a yet undefined vehicle staging plan to “utilize one side of the street” along with on-site parking. (2020 Planning Commission STOA, Conditions 4-6, emphasis added).

Item 9.A
08/23/22
109 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 9 Anywhere near 150 vehicles arriving at or near the same time would create a huge vehicle back-up all along San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street, and other nearby residential streets. Any event involving that many vehicles would create severe back-up and wait times for valet drop-off and pick-up would be long, creating blockages and related noise. To avoid the wait, attendees would likely hunt for parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

These proposals are unworkable for this, or any residential Santa Monica neighborhood, and they should not be allowed.

Realistically, these “Special School Events” would need to involve more staff or outside hires to facilitate them, potentially utilizing additional neighborhood parking. It’s also unclear what street area Carlthorp is proposing for around the school to be utilized as part of the valet parking plan.

All of this really needs to be rethought in a revised and detailed adequate plan that directly addresses and operates to reduce the neighborhood impacts. This can’t be left to Carlthorp, our Planning Director, or a parking company to resolve because we can foresee that these additional cars will be a new source of scarce parking for residents and generate a new negative impact on the surrounding streets at a level much greater than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

It is very important that Council modify the 2020 STOA and impose specific, additional conditions and restrictions to avoid serious, ongoing neighborhood problems resulting in code enforcement complaints as to these “Special School Events,” including related noise issues that haven’t been addressed. Imagine the noise, for example, from people waiting for 150 cars to arrive from the valet stand following the event, or 100 people leaving an event at once to go to their cars in the neighborhood. These obvious issues are pertinent to having the city impose reasonable, enforceable special event planning conditions, not addressed in the 2020 STOA Condition #4.

Thank you for your time and consideration of all these issues that are relevant and impactful for the nearby residents in their daily lives and the surrounding neighborhood.

I also urge you to look at the many thoughtful comments from neighbors and NOMA about the excessive parking and noise resulting from the school’s past expansion.

August 18, 2022
Item 9.A
08/23/22
110 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 10 Diana Gordon, nearby resident on San Vicente Boulevard Item 9.A
08/23/22
111 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 9A Carlthorp CUP Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
For many reasons and particularly for the reasons outlined in Steven Salsberg's appeal and in the separate letters sent to you by Diana Gordon and NOMA, uphold this appeal and deny the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Modification for the expansion of Carlthorp School.

Please uphold this appeal and require that Carlthorp School come into compliance with the previously agreed upon Conditional Use Permit.

Any further development of this property parcel by this scofflaw property owner should require explicit conditions that are strictly enforced. At this point, simply to remain in operation, the school should be required to comply with previous agreed to conditions.

As development accelerates in Santa Monica, will city officials protect residents from the intensification of activity in residential areas?
Will you disregard residents or honor and strengthen standards that protect our community from overreaching businesses?
Please protect our neighbors.

Please uphold this appeal.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident on San Vicente Boulevard
Item 9.A
08/23/22
112 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Item 9.A
08/23/22
113 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Anne OConnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I have been a Santa Monica resident for over 17 years and have been living on the 400 block of San Vicente Blvd., across the street from the Carlthorp School, for nearly 5 years. I am writing to urge you to grant the Appeal to the Carlthorp School Conditional Use Permit (CUP). I have read the appeal submitted by Steven Salsberg, I am in full agreement with all points made and am appalled this permit was ever granted.

The most notable issues are the excessive noise level, the inaccurate and misleading methods used to calculate the Parcel Coverage, the zoning violations and the gross lack of adequate staff parking. After researching this issue it is clear the Planning Commission never should have granted this CUP. Quite honestly, the approval should be regarded as an embarrassment to the Planning Commission and puts the integrity of the entire department into question.

Furthermore, I am in agreement with the points made by fellow resident, Diana Gordon, in her letter transcribed below:
"I. The Appeal of Carlthorp’s request for a CUP must be granted and the CUP denied because the school is in violation of its existing 1995 CUP.

Summary: Carlthorp has failed to manage its off-site employee parking in a residential neighborhood when school is in session so that street parking is reasonably available to the surrounding residents who need it. It has only 32 permitted parking spaces on-site for its 80 current employees, the majority of whom park on nearby streets, negatively impacting the surrounding community.

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under- utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.

Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

The staff report does not address the detrimental off-site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan, or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
114 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

A. Carlthorp is in ongoing violation of the 1995 CUP findings and conditions as to employee parking being on-site
A central finding supporting the 1995 CUP to allow the school to expand in a residential neighborhood was that 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet its post- expansion needs and relieve employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The staff report supported the expansion claiming it would benefit and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because on-street parking would no longer be a problem:
“On-site parking is being provided, albeit in a tandem fashion, which will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by removing parking that currently occurs on- street in the vicinity of the school and shifting it into the off-street spaces.” (6/12/96 staff report, pp-6-7) These representations and assurances became findings upon which the CUP permit was granted:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
115 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3 The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

B. The current staff report is wrong when it states at page 12 that Carlthorp has complied with all conditions of its CUP.

The report fails to address any of the CUP or Variance findings mentioned above relating to parking restrictions or the related, relevant Condition that establishes that Carlthorp is noncompliant and cannot apply for another CUP until it resolves its employee off-site parking.

Conditions of approval are the guts of enforcing the CUP permit. Conditions are mandatory so that the activity – here the expansion: 1) “would not be detrimental to the public interest, ... convenience, or general welfare....” and 2) would “minimize the affect [sic] of the use on adjacent neighbors.” (CUP Finding #10).

Because Carlthorp is in material breach of this Condition and the assurances it gave in obtaining its CUP expansion permit, it cannot obtain a new permit without first curing its existing breach. See 1996 STOA, “Validity of Permit,” Condition #31 which specifically contains this mandate:
“In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” (emphasis added)
On this basis alone the Council must deny the school a new permit at this time.

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 This appeal triggers de novo review, which means that the Council must review the existing CUP not only for compliance, but also must review the current school operation as to whether the key neighborhood compatibility requirements under our General Plan are currently being met.

A. The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion
Circulation Goal T22: “Provide adequate parking availability for residents on residential streets at all times of day” and T22.1 “Strive to manage on-street parking in residential neighborhoods so on average, 15% of the spaces are available to residents at all times of day.” The General Plan also discusses the duty of employers to discourage its employees from parking in residential neighborhoods through a:
“tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage of less-utilized facilities to reduce the burden.” (Circulation 40-70, 5th bullet point).

Here, Carlthorp has a higher duty which the city should enforce because it is operating a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yet it has not taken reasonable steps to procure off-site parking for its employees, or otherwise discourage or prevent the wide-scale offsite employee parking caused by its 1996 expansion.

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 5 every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.”
“As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.”
This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

The proposed, generic TDM plan as part of the record before the Council is aspirational: it has no teeth, no enforcement, or penalties to discourage its employees from parking in the neighborhood.

It doesn’t set any cap on the number of employees who could park off-site or offer any off-site parking solution for its employees or visitors outside of this already dense residential area.

It does not contain firm solutions routinely carried out by businesses that lack sufficient parking who can’t park in residential neighborhoods, such as leasing off-site, under- utilized parking facilities with shuttle transportation to and from the school.

Even this non-solution TDM Plan is predicated on Council granting its CUP. Otherwise, the school has no plans to rein in the excess off-site parking until it is compelled to do so.

Carlthorp has turned a blind eye to the neighborhood problems caused by its operation since its 1996 expansion. The Council must require the school to adopt a reasonable parking plan with enforcement rights that redress the burden to the neighborhood at this point or otherwise greater violations causing neighborhood frustration and ongoing complaints lie ahead.

D. The staff report is not correct that “no new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal” (p.9).

Second, 2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for Council to grasp the magnitude of new parking impacts that would occur.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
118 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 6 As to the more than 50 attendees, no arrangement for parking is provided for them. So, it highly probable that Carlthorp parking will occur on all surrounding streets beyond those streets being used now.

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

Anywhere near 150 vehicles arriving at or near the same time would create a huge vehicle backup all along San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street, and other nearby residential streets. Any event involving that many vehicles would create severe back-up and wait times for valet drop-off and pick-up would be long, creating blockages and related noise. To avoid the wait, attendees would likely hunt for parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

These proposals are unworkable for this, or any residential Santa Monica neighborhood, and they should not be allowed.

Best Regards,
Anne O'Connell
415 San Vicente Blvd. Apt 8
Santa Monica, CA 90402
(310) 663-9885
Item 9.A
08/23/22
119 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 10:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; David Martin
Subject: City Cnl. Mtg. - 8/23/22 - Item 9A - Accept appeal and deny CUP/Minor Modification for Carlthorp expansion

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Residents have come to understand that many things CAN BE WRITTEN into the ZONING CODE but this does not mean they CAN BE IMPLEMENTED OR ENFORCED. We ask the council to reject zoning code that can neither be implemented or enforced to mitigate Carlthrop’s impact on the neighborhood and to act to require Carlthorp to comply with its 1995 CUP and STOA.

Current parking and noise is in violation of Carlthorp’s 1995 CUP While Carlthorp School has received substantial feedback from the neighborhood regarding local parking and noise burden, which at 80 employees not 32 as documented in the 1995 CUP as well as receiving substantial noise complaints, the school has done nothing to address the specified issues. They could have utilized nearby underutilized parking facilities or identified other strategies. This is a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. As well, the staff report does not address the detrimental off‐site parking issue as either a violation of the 1995 CUP, as a violation of the General Plan or as an ongoing problem to the surrounding neighbors despite the record before the Planning Commission when the 2020 STOA was approved.

Action Required: Carlthorp must first cure its violations of the 1995 CUP as to parking and noise before a new CUP can be granted. Why?
 1995 Miscellaneous Condition #25 specifically contains this mandate – “The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
120 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2  1996 STOA, “Validity of Permit,” Condition #31 specifically contains this mandate ‐ “In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until violation has been fully remedied.” The school’s business is no longer consistent with the General Plan because its current operations, including number of employees, is not “compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.” This appeal triggers de novo review, which means that the Council must review the existing CUP not only for compliance, but also must review the current school operations as to whether the key neighborhood compatibility requirements under our General Plan are currently being met.  This is a CUP; the General Plan requires an “additional level of review and a higher threshold of approval” to ensure that a commercial use in a residential neighborhood is compatible with it and with the goals and intents of the General Plan (Staff Report, p10.) Action Required:  City must investigate that the current operations as well as the CUP request is compatible OR incompatible with the General Plan.  Why?
 The General Plan supports city action to protect residential neighborhood residential districts from commercial employee parking incursion i.e., Circulation Goal T22 and T22.1 and Circulation 40‐70, 5th bullet point  The information provided to the Planning Commission is filled with neighbors opposing this permit because of the ongoing parking difficulties and noise resulting from school operations  TDM Plan (if the CUP is approved on appeal) is aspirational and does nothing to solve the street parking burden or discourage employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood  The staff report does not address the ongoing parking impacts of the employees and only discusses parking implementations at page 9 known as PLOP, as to vehicular circulation i.e., drop off and pick up) not the school employee neighborhood parking that is creating difficulties in the neighborhood  2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for city council to understand the magnitude of the new parking impacts that would occur o Carlthorp proposes to hold up to 18 “Special School Events” on campus every academic year for more than 50 adult attendees, not including any school employees or staff.  No arrangement for parking is provided for these types of events so it is assumed that Carlthorp parking will occur on surrounding neighborhood streets.  If 120 attendees with 60 – 80 cars attended an event there is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.
 Six of these events can be held as evening events without Planning Director approval but more can be requested
 The valet parking proposal is not reasonable based on the trigger of 150 vehicles (who determines that, who enforces it).  Valet parking is only required for “Special School Events” expected to draw more than 150 vehicles with a yet undefined vehicle staging plan to “utilize one side of the street” along with on‐site parking (2020 Planning Commission STOA, Conditions 4‐6).  This proposal is not workable and should not be allowed.  As well, how do you decide that valet parking should be used for an unknown number of vehicles?  This option will not be implemented and neighborhood parking will be the default.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
121 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3  There is no limit on events with less than 50 outside attendees Thank‐you for your consideration of these residential issues and concerns.

Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Board of Directors
Item 9.A
08/23/22
122 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 8/23/22 item 9-A -- Carlthorp CUP Appeal -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
August 22,2022

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 8/23/22 agenda item 9-A: Carlthorp CUP Appeal

The Friends of Sunset Park Board joins NOMA (please see the NOMA Board letter below) in supporting the appeal of the Carlthorp CUP.

**************************************************************************

Re: Item 9-A , August 23, 2022 City Council Agenda. -- Carlthorp CUP Appeal.

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
From: North of Montana Neighborhood Association Board (NOMA) Date: August 20, 2022

You have before you an Appeal from the Planning Commission’s grant of a Conditional Use Permit to greatly expand the Carlthorp School on its current property on San Vicente Blvd. surrounded by a large number of multi-unit residences. Because it is the midst of a residential neighborhood, Carlthorp has a higher and special obligation not to impose noise and parking burdens. For the reasons stated in this comment letter, the NOMA Board urges granting the appeal.

We begin by discussing that Carlthorp must first cure its existing violations of its current permit before the Council can grant a new permit. We then review specific areas where the proposed new permit fails to adequately address parking and noise problems and we suggest specific mitigations that you should require as Conditions.

I. Carlthorp Must First Cure it’s Violations of its 1995 CUP as to Parking and Noise Before A New CUP Can be Granted

As the approximately 100 comments from neighbors indicates, Carlthorp is already a significant burden on the neighborhood in terms of noise and parking. Residents have written to you about the appreciable noise emanating from Carlthorp and staff parking on San Vicente, 4th Street, and even Item 9.A
08/23/22
123 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 5 Georgina, contrary to assurances provided in obtaining the 1995 permit and key findings based on these assurances made in the CUP.

These Findings were based on assurances from Carlthorp that following the expansion, it would employ a staff of 32 with tandem parking space for 32 cars on-site. These assurances have turned out to be wildly off.

In fact, Carlthorp has 80 staff, not 32, and those without on-site spaces park on the surrounding streets to the detriment of neighbors. Unfortunately, Carlthorp has done nothing meaningful to mitigate this and come into compliance, despite numerous complaints from neighbors.

Because Carlthorp is in violation of its current 1995 CUP, in terms of noise and parking, the new CUP it is requesting cannot be granted under:

==1995 Condition #25: Carlthorp’s operation must be operated “at all times” not detrimental to surrounding residents in terms of noise and parking; and

==1995 Validity of Permit Condition #31: if Carlthorp violates any condition it must be “fully remedied” before any further permit may be granted.”

The current proposed expansion will only exacerbate these daily burdens on neighbors. Carlthorp must, as required by its existing permit, to first cure its existing violations before the Council can consider a new permit.

II. Any New CUP Must Contain Additional Conditions on Noise and Parking

NOMA asks that if the Council allows a new CUP—after Carlthorp cures its existing violations— the following conditions be added. These would help mitigate the new problems emanating from its expansion and make Carlthorp a better neighbor.

==The proposed Condition #11 calls for only 1 acoustical analysis shortly after it is in use Instead, this should be yearly in real use situations as they may change. At the same time, there should be yearly acoustical analysis of the existing playground. These should be provided to the City and made public.==

Item 9.A
08/23/22
124 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 6 ==The number of students who can use the field at any one time should be specifically limited and not left open ended. The acoustical report is silent on this, and this is a big hole in Condition #11.==

2. There are only 32 parking spots for staff, yet the number of staff at the school is greater than

80. The staff hunt for parking in the neighborhood takes limited spaces away from residents (many older) and workers and guests. This results in residents having to park blocks away from their homes. The school has claimed that parking issues are due to general congestion in the city.

However, when the school is not in session, this isn’t so and a number of neighbors have written about seeing staff park in the neighborhood. A suggestion to include in Conditions:

==Carlthorp should lease or buy an off-site parking location (or part of one) for staff in excess of 32 to use. They should then be shuttled to the school. This is a solution used by a number of businesses.==

3. The proposed Condition for Special Event Parking, Pick-Up, and Drop-Off is totally inadequate and would create serious noise and congestion problems. The proposed CUP envisions 3 different categories of Special Events:

A) Events with under 50 outside adult attendees, not including staff or employees.

Proposed NO limits to these events in terms of number of events or parking mitigations.

B) Events with over 50 outside adult attendees, Carlthorp can hold up to 18 a year, with 6 at night (but more can be requested.) Again, NO provision made for parking. This can include 200 outside adult attendees in any number of cars under 150.

C) Events “expected to draw more than 150 vehicles”, a vague plan for Valet parking is put forth. These would be huge events in a residential neighborhood with maybe 300-400 outside guests. The noise and parking backup would be mammoth and disruptive.

Just think about how this would work. 300-400 people arriving close to one another. 150+ cars backing up for valet. 300-400 people waiting for each of their cars. Where would valet park these cars?

NOMA suggests for Conditions:

==For all Special Events, outside attendees must park at an off-site, out-of-neighborhood location and be shuttled to and from the event.==

==Any event expected to draw more than 75 vehicles or 150 attendees be limited to 2 events per school year.==

NOMA urges the Council to enforce the Conditions of the existing Permit and require Carlthorp to first cure its on-going violations. Once that is done, we urge you to help mitigate the ill effects on Item 9.A
08/23/22
125 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 7 the Historic San Vicente District of this major expansion as conditions for any approval of a new permit.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
126 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Eloise Geller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Cc: David Martin; Regina Szilak
Subject: Support for Carlthorp School
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council, My name is Eloise Geller, and I am a rising 5th grader at Carlthorp School. I am writing in support of the proposed campus changes at Carlthorp School, which I believe will be great improvements for the teachers and students at Carlthorp.

First, a little about me! I live in Pacific Palisades with my family, which includes my two younger sisters, Margot, a rising 2nd grader at Carlthorp and Bea, who is in preschool. Since these changes to the campus wouldn’t happen until after I graduate, I am writing this email for my siblings and all other future Carlthorp students.

There is a lot I love about Carlthorp; my teachers, the friends I’ve made, our science lab full of little critters, and all of the amazing learning experiences that I’ve had so far. From the beginning, even as a little kindergartner, Carlthorp has felt like a very warm and safe place, especially when meeting new friends and learning new things. The small campus makes everything feel less overwhelming. I am so glad that these proposed changes will make the school an even better place to learn, without having to change the footprint.

Additionally, while I love all the traditional subjects we are taught at Carlthorp, one thing I am very passionate about is musical theater. I think the creation of a new multipurpose room is really important for those students who love the arts. It would be great to have a new space on campus that is indoors and can host all types of special events. I would love to be able to come back and visit to watch theater performances, music recitals and other special events in this new room!
Carlthorp has a history of teaching its students to be kind and respectful to our neighbors, and valued members of our community. These values, which are part of our Code of Conduct, guide us in making decisions. I know that these improvements will only make the school better, and I know our school leaders will always be mindful of our neighbors and community while working on these renovations.

Thank you for your time and consideration!
Sincerely,
Eloise Geller
Item 9.A
08/23/22
127 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Item 9.A
08/23/22
128 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: IRISHTRNDO <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I am a Santa Monica resident and currently live on the 400 block of San Vicente Blvd., across the street from the Carlthorp School. I am writing to urge you to grant the Appeal to the Carlthorp School Conditional Use Permit (CUP). I have read the appeal submitted by Steven Salsberg, I am in full agreement with all points made and am appalled this permit was ever granted.

The most notable issues are the excessive noise level, the inaccurate and misleading methods used to calculate the Parcel Coverage, the zoning violations and the gross lack of adequate staff parking. The staff are continuing to take up most of the parking on San Vicente Blvd during the school week/year. This leaves little to no parking available to the residents that actually live here. I can’t even imagine what it will be like when our neighborhood will not only have to absorb the staff parking on our streets but also the influx of construction workers and possibly heavy equipment during any construction. Also, the traffic back up at drop off and pick up is horrendous. It often blocks the normal flow of traffic on San Vicente Blvd during these times. Drop off and pick up should be coordinated in the alley behind the school. Not only to improve the flow of traffic but for the safety concerns of the children getting in and out of cars on an often very busy San Vicente Blvd. After researching this issue it is clear the Planning Commission never should have granted this CUP. Quite honestly, the approval should be regarded as an embarrassment to the Planning Commission and puts the integrity of the entire department into question.

Affected residents unable to find parking near their homes seeking relief have been rebuffed by the school and ignored by the City. This 1996 STOA violation must be remedied before the Council can consider any additional permit to expand school operations. (STOA, Validity of Permit, #31).

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under- utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
129 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

Carlthorp is operating a commercial business IN a residential neighborhood. It is allowing its employees to park wherever they want and turning a deaf ear to resident complaints. Yet the staff report fails to cite Council to the relevant General Plan provisions designed to protect residential neighborhoods from businesses employee parking in residential districts to the detriment of the residents who need it.

A. Carlthorp is in ongoing violation of the 1995 CUP findings and conditions as to employee parking being on-site
A central finding supporting the 1995 CUP to allow the school to expand in a residential neighborhood was that 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet its post- expansion needs and relieve employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The staff report supported the expansion claiming it would benefit and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because on-street parking would no longer be a problem:
“On-site parking is being provided, albeit in a tandem fashion, which will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by removing parking that currently occurs on- street in the vicinity of the school and shifting it into the off-street spaces.” (6/12/96 staff report, pp-6-7) These representations and assurances became findings upon which the CUP permit was granted:

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Item 9.A
08/23/22
130 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3 Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”
Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 biweekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

B. The current staff report is wrong when it states at page 12 that Carlthorp has complied with all conditions of its CUP.

The report fails to address any of the CUP or Variance findings mentioned above relating to parking restrictions or the related, relevant Condition that establishes that Carlthorp is non-compliant and cannot apply for another CUP until it resolves its employee off-site parking.

Conditions of approval are the guts of enforcing the CUP permit. Conditions are mandatory so that the activity – here the expansion: 1) “would not be detrimental to the public interest, ... convenience, or general welfare....” and 2) would “minimize the affect [sic] of the use on adjacent neighbors.” (CUP Finding #10).

Carlthorp is in breach of Miscellaneous Condition #25 which specifically states that it shall not operate its business in a way that is detrimental to surrounding residents as to parking and noise. “The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.” (emphasis added) Carlthorp currently has 250% more employees: 80 employees, not 32. The existing staff levels and their parking needs do not bear any relation to those upon which the CUP was granted. This results in its operation being conducted in a manner detrimental to surrounding neighbors as to parking. It also violates the assurances given, rendering the findings hollow.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
131 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 “In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.” (emphasis added)
On this basis alone the Council must deny the school a new permit at this time.

Carlthorp employees who can’t park on-site could be shuttled to work from a nearby commercial parking venue. This suggestion, made to Carlthorp by its impacted neighbors has been ignored.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
132 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 5 Until it does, its current operation is incompatible both with its surrounding neighborhood and with the General Plan so no additional CUP is warranted or should be granted until the incompatibility is redressed.

Here’s what a neighbor wrote as to neighborhood parking difficulties on behalf of themselves and their neighbors:
“As resident neighbors for over 20 years, we are very much opposed to the granting of any form of Conditional Use Permits to Carlthorp School, located at 438 San Vicente Blvd. Not only does Carlthorp have insufficient parking for its own staff, but for visitors and parents as well. In fact, every day we observe Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.” “As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.” This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

It does not contain firm solutions routinely carried out by businesses that lack sufficient parking who can’t park in residential neighborhoods, such as leasing off-site, under- utilized parking facilities with shuttle transportation to and from the school.

Even this non-solution TDM Plan is predicated on Council granting its CUP. Otherwise, the school has no plans to rein in the excess off-site parking until it is compelled to do so.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
133 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 6 Carlthorp has turned a blind eye to the neighborhood problems caused by its operation since its 1996 expansion. The Council must require the school to adopt a reasonable parking plan with enforcement rights that redress the burden to the neighborhood at this point or otherwise greater violations causing neighborhood frustration and ongoing complaints lie ahead.

D. The staff report is not correct that “no new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal” (p.9).

Second, 2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for Council to grasp the magnitude of new parking impacts that would occur.

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

Anywhere near 150 vehicles arriving at or near the same time would create a huge vehicle back-up all along San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street, and other nearby residential streets. Any event involving that many vehicles would create severe back-up and wait times for valet drop-off and pick-up would be long, creating blockages and related noise. To avoid the wait, attendees would likely hunt for parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

These proposals are unworkable for this, or any residential Santa Monica neighborhood, and they should not be allowed.

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 7 greater than exists now. Of course, if Carlthorp is required to provide off-site commercial space for parking for its employees, that could suffice as the required parking and people could be shuttled from there.

Independent of its ongoing STOA parking violation, the record before the Planning Commission that approved the 2020 STOA shows that over 100 nearby residents opposed any further expansion until the school took reasonable steps to reduce the parking burden caused by school street parking, whether by utilizing nearby under- utilized parking facilities or other enforceable strategies. Additional comments concerned noise and magnitude of the special events Carlthorp proposed if the project were approved.

Unfortunately, while residents have made Carlthorp aware of these ongoing negative impacts on their daily lives for years when school is in session, nothing has been done.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
135 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 8 Before any permit can be granted, additional reasonable, enforceable restrictions as to off-site employee parking, noise, and special events need to be imposed or there will be ongoing complaints following this expansion when additional neighborhood detriment occurs (discussed below).

A. Carlthorp is in ongoing violation of the 1995 CUP findings and conditions as to employee parking being on-site
A central finding supporting the 1995 CUP to allow the school to expand in a residential neighborhood was that 32 on-site tandem parking spaces would meet its post- expansion needs and relieve employee parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The staff report supported the expansion claiming it would benefit and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because on-street parking would no longer be a problem:
“On-site parking is being provided, albeit in a tandem fashion, which will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by removing parking that currently occurs on- street in the vicinity of the school and shifting it into the off-street spaces.” (6/12/96 staff report, pp-6-7) These representations and assurances became findings upon which the CUP permit was granted:

CUP Finding #7:
“All parking is provided on site.”
Similarly, Variance Finding #2 as to the on-site tandem parking:
“The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and the district in which the property is located in that project includes tandem parking space to accommodate the site’s parking needs.”
Presently, Carlthorp has 80 employees, not 32, and more than half of them park in the nearby streets, creating daily parking difficulties for nearby residents when school is in session. This is bad enough, but if the permit is granted, more staff are likely to do so given the school’s ambitious plan to host up to 18 biweekly special school events a year utilizing a new multi-purpose space. The likelihood is that history will repeat itself, with additional staff, parking, and noise issues directly resulting from this expansion.

B. The current staff report is wrong when it states at page 12 that Carlthorp has complied with all conditions of its CUP.

The report fails to address any of the CUP or Variance findings mentioned above relating to parking restrictions or the related, relevant Condition that establishes that Carlthorp is non-compliant and cannot apply for another CUP until it resolves its employee off-site parking.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
136 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 9 Conditions of approval are the guts of enforcing the CUP permit. Conditions are mandatory so that the activity – here the expansion: 1) “would not be detrimental to the public interest, ... convenience, or general welfare....” and 2) would “minimize the affect [sic] of the use on adjacent neighbors.” (CUP Finding #10).

Carlthorp is in breach of Miscellaneous Condition #25 which specifically states that it shall not operate its business in a way that is detrimental to surrounding residents as to parking and noise. “The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions.” (emphasis added) Carlthorp currently has 250% more employees: 80 employees, not 32. The existing staff levels and their parking needs do not bear any relation to those upon which the CUP was granted. This results in its operation being conducted in a manner detrimental to surrounding neighbors as to parking. It also violates the assurances given, rendering the findings hollow.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
137 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 10 Moreover, because this is a CUP, the General Plan requires an “additional level of review and a higher threshold of approval” to ensure that a commercial use in a residential neighborhood is compatible with it and with the goals and intents of the General Plan.” (Staff Report, p10).

Carlthorp employees who can’t park on-site could be shuttled to work from a nearby commercial parking venue. This suggestion, made to Carlthorp by its impacted neighbors has been ignored.

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 11 Carlthorp employees, visitors, and parents parking their vehicles in the limited street spaces available for the area residents on San Vicente Boulevard, 4th Street and Georgina.” “As a result, the area has become unnecessarily congested, with street parking becoming incredibly difficult for residents to find, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The problem would be greatly reduced if Carlthorp expanded its parking facilities to support its needs, instead of other operations.” This is typical of the real-life difficulties that nearby residents raised with Carlthorp as well as the Planning Commission. Residents maintain that the school is cordial to hearing their complaints, but non-responsive.

It does not contain firm solutions routinely carried out by businesses that lack sufficient parking who can’t park in residential neighborhoods, such as leasing off-site, under- utilized parking facilities with shuttle transportation to and from the school.

Even this non-solution TDM Plan is predicated on Council granting its CUP. Otherwise, the school has no plans to rein in the excess off-site parking until it is compelled to do so.

D. The staff report is not correct that “no new parking impacts are associated with the current proposal” (p.9).

Second, 2020 STOA Condition #4 which covers special events isn’t described in the staff report as it needs to be for Council to grasp the magnitude of new parking impacts that would occur.

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 12 evening events without Planning Director approval but more can be requested. There is no limit on events with less than 50 outside attendees.

By way of example, suppose 140 attendees with 70-100 vehicles will attend an event. There is no proposed parking plan for how to handle the parking.

These proposals are unworkable for this, or any residential Santa Monica neighborhood, and they should not be allowed.

Best Regards,
Kristin Phasavath
415 San Vicente Blvd
Item 9.A
08/23/22
140 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 13 Vernice Hankins
From: Bruce Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:14 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item #9A. - Carl Thorp Appeal

EXTERNAL

UPHOLD THE APPEAL
Mayor and Council Members - I urge you to uphold the appeal to oppose the Carl Thorp school expansion plan. The school has proved itself an unreliable neighbor, not abiding by its previous plans to provide adequate parking for its staff, and disrupting the neighborhood with long lines of idling cars at pickup and dropoff times.

It is clear that the school has outgrown its residential site. If their needs require additional buildings, larger faculty, and increased parking, their current location is no longer viable.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Bruce Leddy
NOMA Executive Board
Item 9.A
08/23/22
141 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: phillis dudick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 9-A CARLTHORP SCHOOOL APPEAL AUGUST 23

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Sue Himmelrich and City Councilmembers:

As one who has resided on San Vicente Boulevard for many years and member of the Historic San Vicente Coalition Steering Committee, I fully support this appeal.

While understanding the school's desire to expand, it is extremely important to consider the "impact" of such an expansion upon residents who make their homes on the San Vicente Boulevard corridor between Ocean Avenue and 7th and on neighboring streets.

This is by no means a "minor expansion" for hundreds and hundreds of residents living in nearly 50 multi‐unit buildings comprising the Historic San Vicente Courtyard District, nor for homeowners on adjacent streets.

In fact, many of us believe Carlthorp School has more than reached its maximum capacity for growth on a one‐acre parcel in this residential neighborhood and should be encouraged to develop a permanent off‐site campus to house an expansion.

Regardless of statements to the contrary, how can we not imagine an increased noise factor (to an already burdensome situation for neighbors) by the addition of an open rooftop sports field to an already existing outdoor play area.

The projected underground community room will serve as a "space for special events", no longer necessitating holding large events off grounds. Of course, these activities will bring numerous and more cars to the area, where resident parking is already a major issue. The notion of "valet parking" on neighboring streets is both unrealistic and naive, understanding the circumstances on the ground.

A five‐to‐seven year summer construction project will additionally impact peace and tranquility of neighbors in their homes and hardly seems reasonable to ask residents to endure.

Residents matter! Please uphold the appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 9.A
08/23/22
142 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gary Hudson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Strongly against the contruction plans of Carlthorp school

EXTERNAL
Morning,
I live across the street from the Carlthorp school at 427 San Vicente. I have had many talks with the principals there for the past 25 yrs. The current principal is never accommodating and is a bit arrogant to be honest, about the noise starting at around 7:00‐ 7:30 am as the kids arrive waking up their neighbors. Nothing ever changes. The kids and Teachers controlling the arrival are incredibly loud. Every morning. How hard is it to have a quiet policy, to respect their neighbors, for the kids and their parents in the early morning? Now they want to start a massive expansion. I work from home taping my auditions and laying down my Voiceovers. This construction would be a nightmare for the neighborhood and for myself and my work.

I went to a neighborhood elementary school in Newport new Va. for 7 yrs. Hilton School. We had a strict policy from 1‐7 grades to speak quietly( if at all)as we arrived in the morning for school to respect the neighbors. As we all walked to school. If we didn't, and there were complaints by the neighbors there were consequences. Recess restrictions..etc. So we were quiet in the morning and our parents made sure we were also. Starting at 6 yrs old
These kids are out of control in the morning and the teachers are sometimes out with a bull horn. The kids are screaming out of control. I like kids, and outside of the early mornings, the school is fine. I toss their soccer balls back that come over the fence into the road during their recess quite often.

But starting this construction, which I'm sure will start at 7 am and go on all day will not be pleasant.

I hope this permit will be denied and that the city would speak with the school about the noise that already exists every morning with the student's arrival. No need to set an alarm as the kids and teachers wake me up every morning.

Now they want to add a major construction plan. I hope that's not the case and this permit is denied.

Thanks,
Gary Hudson
427 San Vicente
Item 9.A
08/23/22
143 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal
From: Mary Jimenez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
I’m a resident and owner at 450 San Vicente. #304.

I support the appeal to deny Calthorp another permit to expand .

Carlthorp needs to be a better neighbor as parking becomes ever scarcer for residents and our visitors.

Carlthorp need to fix their staff parking in the neighborhood by doing what other commercial businesses do ‐ procure off ‐site parking and shuttle service for its burgeoning staff and visitors so they don’t park in residential neighborhoods to the detriment of the residents who live there.

This has gone on long enough. I have lived her for 16 years and it keeps getting worse.

Thank you
Mary Jiménez
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 9.A
08/23/22
144 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gary Hudson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Strongly against the contruction plans of Carlthorp school

EXTERNAL
Wanted to add the parking situation. It's very difficult for people who live here to find parking if you don't have a garage. I understand the school already exceeds the parking allowed by the city for faculty. This expansion would only add greatly to the parking problems that exist in the neighborhood.

Thank you,
Gary Hudson
427 San Vicente
From: councilmtgitems <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Gary Hudson <[email protected]>
Subject: Automatic reply: Strongly against the contruction plans of Carlthorp school

Thank you for your email. Please be advised that this email will: 1) become part of the public record, 2) be filed with the City’s official records, and 3) be posted online at smgov.net/council/agendas. Comments will not be redacted and appear online as they are submitted.

If you plan to speak at the meeting and have an electronic presentation to show, please submit it to [email protected] no later than 12 PM on the day of the meeting.

Thank you,
The City Clerk’s Office
Item 9.A
08/23/22
145 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: City Council 8/23/22 Item 9A -- Calthorp CUP Appeal -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
August 23,2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Pico Neighborhood Association RE: 8/23/22 Agenda Item 9-A: Carlthorp CUP Appeal
The Board of the Pico Neighborhood Association joins NOMA (please see the NOMA Board letter below) in supporting the appeal of the Carlthorp CUP.

************************************************************************** Re: Item 9-A , August 23, 2022 City Council Agenda. -- Carlthorp CUP Appeal.

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
From: North of Montana Neighborhood Association Board (NOMA) Date: August 20, 2022
You have before you an Appeal from the Planning Commission’s grant of a Conditional Use Permit to greatly expand the Carlthorp School on its current property on San Vicente Blvd. surrounded by a large number of multi-unit residences. Because it is the midst of a residential neighborhood, Carlthorp has a higher and special obligation not to impose noise and parking burdens. For the reasons stated in this comment letter, the NOMA Board urges granting the appeal.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
146 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 3 We begin by discussing that Carlthorp must first cure its existing violations of its current permit before the Council can grant a new permit. We then review specific areas where the proposed new permit fails to adequately address parking and noise problems and we suggest specific mitigations that you should require as Conditions.

I. Carlthorp Must First Cure it’s Violations of its 1995 CUP as to Parking and Noise Before A New CUP Can be Granted
As the approximately 100 comments from neighbors indicates, Carlthorp is already a significant burden on the neighborhood in terms of noise and parking. Residents have written to you about the appreciable noise emanating from Carlthorp and staff parking on San Vicente, 4th Street, and even Georgina, contrary to assurances provided in obtaining the 1995 permit and key findings based on these assurances made in the CUP.

As NOMA member Diana Gordon pointed out in her letter to you, which we incorporate here, the 1995 CUP (the current Permit) Finding #7 states clearly: “All parking is provided on site.” Also, its Variance Finding #2 states: “The granting of such variance shall not be detrimental…in that the project includes tandem parking spaces to accommodate the site’s parking needs.” These Findings were based on assurances from Carlthorp that following the expansion, it would employ a staff of 32 with tandem parking space for 32 cars on-site. These assurances have turned out to be wildly off.

Because Carlthorp is in violation of its current 1995 CUP, in terms of noise and parking, the new CUP it is requesting cannot be granted under:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
147 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 4 ==1995 Condition #25: Carlthorp’s operation must be operated “at all times” not detrimental to surrounding residents in terms of noise and parking; and ==1995 Validity of Permit Condition #31: if Carlthorp violates any condition it must be “fully remedied” before any further permit may be granted.” The current proposed expansion will only exacerbate these daily burdens on neighbors. Carlthorp must, as required by its existing permit, to first cure its existing violations before the Council can consider a new permit.

II. Any New CUP Must Contain Additional Conditions on Noise and Parking NOMA asks that if the Council allows a new CUP—after Carlthorp cures its existing violations— the following conditions be added. These would help mitigate the new problems emanating from its expansion and make Carlthorp a better neighbor.

1. The new rooftop playing field must be noise neutral. There have been complaints from neighbors about noise from the existing field. It is important that the new rooftop field not become a noise detriment also. Two suggestions to include in Conditions:
==The proposed Condition #11 calls for only 1 acoustical analysis shortly after it is in use Instead, this should be yearly in real use situations as they may change. At the same time, there should be yearly acoustical analysis of the existing playground. These should be provided to the City and made public.==
==The number of students who can use the field at any one time should be specifically limited and not left open ended. The acoustical report is silent on this, and this is a big hole in Condition #11.==

2. There are only 32 parking spots for staff, yet the number of staff at the school is greater than

80. The staff hunt for parking in the neighborhood takes limited spaces away from residents (many Item 9.A
08/23/22
148 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 5 older) and workers and guests. This results in residents having to park blocks away from their homes. The school has claimed that parking issues are due to general congestion in the city.

However, when the school is not in session, this isn’t so and a number of neighbors have written about seeing staff park in the neighborhood. A suggestion to include in Conditions:
==Carlthorp should lease or buy an off-site parking location (or part of one) for staff in excess of 32 to use. They should then be shuttled to the school. This is a solution used by a number of businesses.==

A) Events with under 50 outside adult attendees, not including staff or employees.

Proposed NO limits to these events in terms of number of events or parking mitigations.

Just think about how this would work. 300-400 people arriving close to one another. 150+ cars backing up for valet. 300-400 people waiting for each of their cars. Where would valet park these cars?
NOMA suggests for Conditions:

Item 9.A
08/23/22
149 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 6 ==For all Special Events, outside attendees must park at an off-site, out-of-neighborhood location and be shuttled to and from the event.==
==Any event expected to draw more than 75 vehicles or 150 attendees be limited to 2 events per school year.==
NOMA urges the Council to enforce the Conditions of the existing Permit and require Carlthorp to first cure its on-going violations. Once that is done, we urge you to help mitigate the ill effects on the Historic San Vicente District of this major expansion as conditions for any approval of a new permit.

Item 9.A
08/23/22
150 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kevin Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 10:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to oppose the Carlthorp School expansion plan. As a direct neighbor to the school, my concern centers on the proposed rooftop playground. As it stands currently, Carlthorp students spend a significant amount of the school day in extremely loud play on their available playground (frankly, the school sometimes seems more daycare center than school, given the amount of time the kids are outside engaged in sports and games), and to add yet more play space -- doubling their opportunity to scream at us neighbors -- is unfair to those of us who work from home (many in the neighborhood, in today's work culture.)
While I understand it's a tall ask to expect children not to scream happily while running around their playgrounds, it is their recess teachers who are the real offenders, yelling louder still in seeming competition with the kids, to encourage more of their shouting in return, or simply in order to be heard above them. Either way, everyone at the school seems completely oblivious to their neighbors in surrounding buildings. If the Carlthorp administration gave any sense they cared about the noise their neighbors put up with, I might be inclined to meet them with more consideration myself, but when I can hear the constant shouting of the PE teachers clearly -- over and over, hour after hour -- it's obvious to me that no one at the school has ever said the words: "Be Considerate To Our Neighbors." Why expect consideration from us, when they show such a lack of courtesy themselves? Doubling the outdoor play space in which their students and teachers can scream unreservedly is too much to ask of a residential neighborhood, as it seems too difficult for them to imagine toning it down.

The general construction noise in the neighborhood will be bad enough, given the major work required to build a 5000 sq ft underground multipurpose room, but to leave us with an extra 9000 sq ft rooftop noise factory will be a permanent insult to the temporary construction injury. I oppose this expansion.

Kevin Kennedy
415 San Vicente Blvd #3
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 9.A
08/23/22
151 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Richard Michaelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item # 9.A. Carlthorp Appeal

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

We live across the street from Calthorp and have written to you in regard to the Calthorp School expansion in the past.

Our position remains the same as we implore you to deny these expansion plans.

Increased noise, traffic, air pollution, and decreased quality of life will be the inevitable outcome of any such expansion.

Please help our city stay livable and do not bend to the power & will of the wealthy Elite who seem to be the only people this will benefit.

Thank you
Michaelsen Household
Item 9.A
08/23/22
152 of 152 Item 9.A
08/23/22

9.A.z
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: Written Comment (5154 : Appeal Planning Commission CUP and Modification for Carlthorp School, 438 San Vicente (75 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Danny Alvarez, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 4.65.030 and Approval of First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing Services Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #10605 with Westmed Ambulance Service Inc. DBA McCormick Ambulance Service for emergency ambulance services and medical billing services for the Fire Department.

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a cost recovery agreement with McCormick Ambulance for two years, on the same terms and conditions, for a total agreement period of seven-years.

3. Introduce for first reading an ordinance to amend Municipal Code Section

4.65.030 to extend the Living Wage Ordinance exemption for the term of the contract with McCormick Ambulance for emergency transportation and billing services.

Executive Summary
The City has utilized an emergency ambulance and billing service company since 2004 to provide emergency medical transport and billing services for the response, assessment, treatment and/or transportation of members of the public by Fire Department paramedics. On January 9, 2018 Council approved Contract No. 10605 (“Agreement”) with McCormick Ambulance to provide emergency ambulance and billing services for a three-year term beginning February 1, 2018 with two additional one-year options to extend the term. On February 1, 2021 the City Manager notified McCormick of its intent to extend the term for the period of one year. On January 31, 2022 the City Manager notified McCormick of its intent to extend the term for the period of one year.

10.A
Packet Pg. 1103
2 of 6
The current Agreement term runs through January 31, 2023. This proposed modification to the Agreement would extend the Agreement for an additional two years, or until January 31, 2025. McCormick’s compensation under the Agreement is based on billing for transported patient services. McCormick also generates a separate bill for City services, resulting in anticipated cost-recovery of $973,258 as reflected in the FY 2022- 23 Budget.

Discussion
The Santa Monica Fire Department (“SMFD”) responds to nearly 17,000 emergency calls for service annually and approximately 75% are calls for medical services.

McCormick transports approximately 7,500 patients annually. The Fire Department’s response model includes seven paramedic engine companies, the Community Response Unit, and other support units deployed as needed, including three rescue ambulances that are mainly used for special events. Contracted McCormick emergency ambulances are used to transport patients on behalf of the Santa Monica Fire Department with Department paramedics on-board during an advanced life support transport to provide patient treatment in the ambulance while enroute to a medical facility.

McCormick’s compensation under the Agreement is not a direct payment from the City.

Rather, McCormick bills the patient directly for their transport services. McCormick will also bill the patient on behalf of the Santa Monica Fire Department for Advanced Life Support assessments provided by the Fire Department; $973,258 in cost-recovery has been included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget.

Charges are assessed based on the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Assessment Fee adopted by Council on June 15, 2004 and the ALS Assessment for Basic Life Support (BLS) Transport fee adopted on October 26, 2021. The Advanced Life Support Assessment Fee is the difference between the Los Angeles County approved Advanced Life Support (“ALS”) rate (currently $2,710) and the Los Angeles County approved Basic Life Support (“BLS”) rate (currently $1,809) as set forth in the most current Los Angeles County General Public and Ambulance Rates Schedule. On the City’s behalf,

10.A
Packet Pg. 1104
3 of 6
McCormick bills approximately $901 per transport based on the current fee structure, however Medi-Cal and Medicare patients are billed at their respective contracted rate.

McCormick bills for the BLS transport services and are paid directly from the payer.

McCormick bills the patient for ALS assessment or treatment; the City receives the ALS billable rate for services provided by SMFD paramedics.

The City is currently under contract with McCormick Ambulance until January 31, 2023 as its ambulance provider and ambulance-related billing services provider. McCormick has successfully provided ambulance services for over the past four years. Staff recommends extending their term for an additional two years of service while the Department undergoes a cost/revenue analysis of all options available for the delivery of Fire Department-based emergency medical services including the current delivery system and practices.

Previous Contractor Selection
On January 9, 2018 Council awarded the current emergency ambulance and billing services. Representatives from the Fire Department and Finance Department recommended McCormick Ambulance as the best qualified firm based on the evaluation criteria. McCormick Ambulance’s proposal demonstrated their depth and breadth of experience and their organizational structure displayed their highly qualified personnel.

Exemption From Living Wage Requirement
Contractors who provide emergency ambulance services to the City are different from other City contractors subject to the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) because emergency ambulance providers do not control rates for the services they provide. Rather, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors sets rates for all emergency transport services.

The County rates are the maximum allowable ambulance rates chargeable to the general public. Thus, while there is an established methodology for increasing rates that takes into account some wage changes, these factors do not include the higher Santa Monica living wage. Additionally, revenue collected by ambulance companies is dependent on the insurance payer mix of the patients transported. Payer mix varies from community to community, and in Santa Monica, approximately one third of payers

10.A
Packet Pg. 1105
4 of 6
are Medicare and another third are Medi-Cal recipients. These payers pay considerably less to the ambulance company than what is billed. All of these factors, in addition to employee wages, influence the bottom line of any ambulance company providing services in this community.

On June 09, 2020, Council extended Living Wage Ordinance amendment 2458 CCS that exempted ambulance services from the living wage for a limited time which sunsets on January 31, 2023. Staff identified that emergency ambulance services providers have specific challenges that differentiate them from other City contractors. This action has ensured continuous provision of effective emergency services. Impacted vendors must still comply with the City’s minimum wage law. Staff is seeking to extend this exemption for the duration of the contract with McCormick by adopting the attached resolution extending the term. (Attachment A)

10.A
Packet Pg. 1106
5 of 6
Past Council Actions
Meeting Description
03/08/2005 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2152 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica adding chapter 4.65 to the Santa Monica municipal code creating minimum wage requirements applicable to city contractors
07/11/2017 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2548 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica amending Santa Monica municipal code section 4.65.030 to provide a
temporary exemption for emergency ambulance and billing services
01/09/2018 City Council awarded RFP#144 to Westmed ambulance inc. dba McCormick ambulance
06/23/2020 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2640 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica amending Santa Monica municipal code section 4.65.030 to provide a
temporary exemption for emergency ambulance and billing services
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate budget or financial impact related to this staff report. McCormick Ambulance’s compensation is not a direct payment from the City; the provider bills the patient directly. McCormick Ambulance will also bill the patient on behalf of the Santa Monica Fire Department for services provided by the Fire Department; $973,258 in costrecovery has been included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget.

Prepared By: Deanna Kendall, Administrative Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. McCormick OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Updated 12.2021
B. McCormick Ambulance Staff Report 1.9.2018 Item 3F
C. Attachment A Proposed Ordinance Amending LWO Exemption 2024 CAO

10.A
Packet Pg. 1107
6 of 6
D. Living Wage Exemption 2548
E. Living Wage Exemption 2640

10.A
Packet Pg. 1108

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 1109 Attachment: McCormick OAKS INITIATIVE FORM - Updated 12.2021 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018
Agenda Item: 3.F
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bill Walker, Fire Chief, Fire Department
Subject: Award RFP# 144 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Award RFP#144 to Westmed Ambulance INC. DBA McCormick Ambulance, a Colorado based company, to provide emergency ambulance and billing services for the Fire Department;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a cost recovery agreement with McCormick Ambulance, for three years, with two additional one-year renewal options, on the same terms and conditions over a five-year period.

Executive Summary
A private ambulance contractor has provided emergency ambulance transport and billing services for the Fire Department since 2004. Following a competitive bidding process, staff recommends a contract with McCormick Ambulance to provide emergency ambulance and billing services for a three-year term beginning February 1, 2018. McCormick Ambulance bills the patient directly for transported services resulting in the Fire Department’s anticipated annual cost recovery of $800,000, as reflected in the FY2017-18 Budget.

Background
On April 10, 2017, the City posted a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Emergency Ambulance Services and Patient Billing, seeking proposals from ambulance service contractors interested in providing emergency (911) ambulance transportation and patient billing services for the Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD). One potential proposer notified the City that they would not submit a proposal due to their inability to comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). City staff subsequently reached out to other service providers and concluded that industry standard pay, including that

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1110 Attachment: McCormick Ambulance Staff Report 1.9.2018 Item 3F (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient 2 of 5
of the City’s current provider, does not comply with the City’s LWO. In light of the information received, staff cancelled that RFP.

Staff identified that emergency ambulance services providers have specific challenges that differentiate them from other City contractors. Additionally, the City is not currently prepared to provide emergency transport services. As a result, on July 11, 2017, Council adopted Living Wage Ordinance amendment 2458 CCS that exempted ambulance services from the living wage for a limited time which sunsets on June 30, 2020. This action has ensured continuous provision of effective emergency services.

Impacted vendors must still comply with the City’s minimum wage law.

Contractors who provide emergency ambulance services to the City are different from other City contractors subject to the LWO because emergency ambulance providers do not control rates for the services they provide. Rather, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors sets rates for all emergency transport services. The Board adjusts rates annually based on changes to the medical care and transportation line items of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and, starting July 1, 2017, the percentage change of the Los Angeles County minimum wage change. The County rates are the maximum allowable ambulance rates chargeable to the general public.

Thus, while there is an established methodology for increasing rates that takes into account some wage changes, these factors do not include the higher Santa Monica living wage. Additionally, revenue collected by ambulance companies is dependent on the insurance payer mix of the patients transported. Payer mix varies from community to community, and in Santa Monica, approximately one third of payers are Medicare and another third MediCal recipients. These payers pay considerably less to the ambulance company than what is billed. All of these factors, in addition to employee wages, influence the bottom line of any ambulance company providing services in this community.

The City is currently under contract until January 31, 2018, with Ameri-Care Ambulance as its ambulance provider and ambulance-related billing services provider. Ameri-Care has successfully provided ambulance services for the past five years. However, they

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1111 Attachment: McCormick Ambulance Staff Report 1.9.2018 Item 3F (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient 3 of 5
are not recommended as the best qualified firm based on their proposal but will continue to provide their high-level of service until the completion of their contract and until their billing services are complete.

Discussion
The City has utilized an emergency ambulance and billing service company since 2004 to provide emergency medical transport and billing services for the response, assessment, treatment and/or transportation of members of the public by Fire Department paramedics. Charges are assessed based on the Advanced Life Support Assessment Fee adopted by City Council on June 15, 2004. The Advanced Life Support Assessment Fee is the difference between the Los Angeles County approved Advanced Life Support (“ALS”) rate and the Los Angeles County approved Basic Life Support (“BLS”) rate as set forth in the most current Los Angeles County Emergency Services Agency General Public Ambulance Rates. On the City’s behalf, McCormick Ambulance will bill approximately $796.00 per transport based on the current fee structure, excepting Medi-Cal and Medicare patients.

The Fire Department responds to over 16,000 emergency medical calls annually and calls for patient transport have increased 5% as compared to the previous year.

Currently approximately 7,500 patients are transported annually to local hospitals. The Fire Department’s response model includes six paramedic engine companies, two rescue ambulance paramedic non-transport unit, and other support units deployed as needed. The department also maintains two additional rescue ambulances that are mainly used for special events and non-transport responses. Contracted emergency ambulances are used to transport patients on behalf of the Fire Department with Santa Monica Fire Department paramedics on-board to provide patient treatment in the ambulance while en route to a medical facility.

Contractor Selection
In October 2017, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an emergency ambulance and billing services. The RFP was posted on the City’s on-line bidding site, and notices were advertised in the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code 2.24.072 Best Bidder provisions. Two Los Angeles County

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1112 Attachment: McCormick Ambulance Staff Report 1.9.2018 Item 3F (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient 4 of 5
approved ambulance providers submitted proposals. Proposals were evaluated on experience, technical competence, training and continuing education of staff, billing and collection systems, business stability and references, value added and breadth of service, fleet and equipment quality and maintenance, capability and completeness of proposal to meet request for proposal requirements, and operational systems. After a thorough review, the five member selection committee comprised of representatives from the Fire Department and Finance Department recommended McCormick Ambulance as the best qualified firm based on the evaluation criteria. McCormick Ambulance’s proposal demonstrated their depth and breadth of experience and their organizational structure displayed their highly qualified personnel. McCormick’s fleet is expansive including 83 ambulances, 3 specialty disaster units, 2 high-risk ambulance units which can serve as isolations units for chemical exposures or suspected infectious diseases, a mobile command and communications trailer, and a mobile generator and fuel tender all of which could be utilized by the City in the event of a large-scale emergency or for special events. McCormick also operates an in-house, full service and fully accredited maintenance facility in Los Angeles County. McCormick currently meets all applicable minimum wage laws including the City’s Minimum Wage Ordinance (MWO), Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.62. McCormick’s proposal also identified their extensive employee training and continuing education program. The Fire Department is presently working with the current and prospective ambulance transport providers to ensure a smooth and seamless transition.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate budget or financial impact related to this staff report. McCormick Ambulance’s compensation is not a direct payment from the City; the provider bills the patient directly. McCormick Ambulance will also bill the patient on behalf of the Santa Monica Fire Department for services provided by the Fire Department; $800,000 in costrecovery has been included in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget.

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1113 Attachment: McCormick Ambulance Staff Report 1.9.2018 Item 3F (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient 5 of
5 Prepared By: Terese Toomey, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council

10.A.b
Packet Pg. 1114 Attachment: McCormick Ambulance Staff Report 1.9.2018 Item 3F (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Attachment A
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California

ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.65.030 TO PROVIDE A

TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR EMERGENCY AMBULANCE AND BILLING

SERVICES
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005 the City Council of the City of Santa Monica adopted Ordinance No. 2152 (the “Living Wage Ordinance”) to require that persons working on City contracts over a threshold amount receive a living wage; and WHEREAS, the findings approved as part of that ordinance established that its purposes include ensuring that those workers have sufficient income to pay the high costs of living in the City, region, and state, to cover health care, and to have the leisure to participate in civic life; and
WHEREAS, the Living Wage Ordinance is broadly applicable to all City contracts in the amount of $54,200 or more; and
WHEREAS, recent experience has demonstrated that in some circumstances strict adherence to the requirements of the Living Wage Ordinance is detrimental to the City's welfare and does not serve the ordinance's purposes; and WHEREAS, providing emergency ambulance transport services is of vital importance to the City; and

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1115 Attachment: Attachment A Proposed Ordinance Amending LWO Exemption 2024 CAO [Revision 3] (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 Attachment A
WHEREAS, providers of emergency ambulance transport services do not control rates for the services they provide and thus cannot currently comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2548, which amended Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.65.030 to provide for a temporary exemption to the Living Wage Ordinance for emergency ambulance and billing services until June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2640, which amended Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.65.030 to extend the sunset of the temporary exemption to the Living Wage Ordinance for emergency ambulance and billing services to until January 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, given the likelihood that the City will ultimately opt to extend the term of its current contract for emergency ambulance and billing services, the City’s contract with the provider of these services could have a contract term that continues until January 31, 2025, or two years past the expiration of the temporary exemption to the Living Wage Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

4.65.030 to further extend the sunset provision in the exemption to the Living Wage Ordinance so that the expiration of the exemption is in alignment with the longest possible contract term for the City’s current contract with its emergency ambulance and billing services provider, or until January 31, 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.65.030 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1116 Attachment: Attachment A Proposed Ordinance Amending LWO Exemption 2024 CAO [Revision 3] (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 Attachment A

4.65.030 Exemption.

The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to employers that are government agencies, City grantees, nonprofit corporations, corporations providing banking services, or entities providing emergency ambulance and billing services. The exemption set forth in this Section for entities providing emergency ambulance and billing services shall sunset on January 31, 2023 January 31, 2025.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.A.c
Packet Pg. 1117 Attachment: Attachment A Proposed Ordinance Amending LWO Exemption 2024 CAO [Revision 3] (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1118 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2548 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1119 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2548 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1120 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2548 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing

10.A.d
Packet Pg. 1121 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2548 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing City Council Meeting: June 23, 2020 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER 2640 (CCS)
City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.65.030 TO PROVIDE A

TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR EMERGENCY AMBULANCE AND BILLING

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1122 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2640 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing WHEREAS, providers of emergency ambulance transport services do not control rates for the services they provide and thus cannot currently comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2548, which amended Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.65.030 to provide for a temporary exemption to the Living Wage Ordinance for emergency ambulance and billing services until June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, taking into account two potential one-year extensions, the City’s current contract with the current provider of emergency ambulance transport services will terminate on January 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section

4.65.030 to extend the temporary exemption to the Living Wage Ordinance for emergency ambulance and billing services until January 31, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.65.030 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.65.030 Exemption.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A46C7A33-A151-405E-8C3C-CC0B57915A05

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1123 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2640 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

GEORGE S. CARDONA
Interim City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: A46C7A33-A151-405E-8C3C-CC0B57915A05

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1124 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2640 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing Approved and adopted this 23rd day of June, 2020.

Kevin McKeown, Mayor
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss.

City of Santa Monica )
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2640 (CCS) had its introduction on June 9, 2020 and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on June 23, 2020, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Davis, Morena, Himmelrich, Winterer, Jara, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor McKeown
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:

Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
A summary of Ordinance No. 2640 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to California Government Code Section 40806.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A46C7A33-A151-405E-8C3C-CC0B57915A05 6/ 26/ 2020

10.A.e
Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Living Wage Exemption 2640 (5260 : First Modification to Contract 10605 for Emergency Medical Patient Transport and Billing City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying City Sidewalk Vending to Allow for Stationary Vending with 100-500 Foot Perimeter to Santa Monica Pier by Permitted Vendors
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Sec. 6.36.040 to expand opportunities for stationary sidewalk vending.

Executive Summary
In response to the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 946 decriminalizing sidewalk vending, Santa Monica was one of the first cities in California to implement a vending permit program. Today over 180 vendors are licensed in the City. However, after continued proliferation of unpermitted vending around the Pier and heightened community concern following several public safety incidents involving unpermitted vendors, in December 2021, the Council directed the City Manager to return with a study session focused on the citywide response to sidewalk vending in Santa Monica. The Council held a study session on February 22, 2022 and gave direction to staff to continue its coordinated enforcement approach focused on public safety and health, while exploring opportunities to expand economic opportunities for our local, permitted vendors and working with stakeholders to reduce the barriers to entry for those who seek to vend lawfully in Santa Monica.

In response to Council direction along with feedback and advocacy from current permitted vendors in Santa Monica, staff is recommending a relatively modest but

10.B
Packet Pg. 1126
2 of 8
meaningful modification to the City’s local sidewalk vending ordinance that would allow for stationary vending in the 100-to-500-foot “buffer zone” (Attachment A) at the southern end of Palisades Park—a busy and economically desirable area where only roaming vending is currently allowed. If Council approves, staff would work to implement a rotational space allocation system for permitted stationary vending within this area to provide equitable access to lucrative vending opportunities in this area. Staff would also advance further outreach and policy measures to expand opportunities for sidewalk vendors as presented below.

Background
SB 946
On September 17, 2018, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 946 (Attachment B), which decriminalized sidewalk vending across California. The intent of the law was to create entrepreneurial and economic development opportunities for immigrant and low-income communities; increase access to culturally significant food and merchandise; contribute to a safe and dynamic public space; and promote the safety and welfare of the public by encouraging local authorities to support and properly regulate sidewalk vending. The law established the legality for both stationary and roaming vending to occur. Under SB 946, cities were not allowed to adopt requirements imposing certain regulations on the time, place, and manner of sidewalk vending, without first establishing a permitting program and making findings due to objective health, safety, and welfare concerns. In April 2019, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Attachment C) establishing a local permitting program for sidewalk vending in Santa Monica that balanced public health while expanding opportunities for micro-entrepreneurs. Santa Monica was one of the first cities in the state to develop a vending program, and today over 180 vendors are legally permitted to vend in Santa Monica.

In August 2021, following a rise in crowds and commercial activities after many months of stay-at-home orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council approved an emergency ordinance (Attachment D) to address public safety and environmental risks arising from unlawful commercial activity around the Santa Monica Pier. The ordinance applies to all persons, including sidewalk vendors, and prohibits the use of unpermitted

10.B
Packet Pg. 1127
3 of 8
combustible fuels on or within 25 feet of the Pier, the dumping of commercial trash in public receptacles, and the disposal of liquid waste in public spaces and storm drains. In February 2022, the City Council amended the combustible fuels ordinance to also prohibit the possession of combustible fuels on or within 25 feet of the Pier.

Pier Task Force/DaRT Update
Since the inception of the City’s permitted vending program in 2019, staff have prioritized educating vendors about our permit program and have sought voluntary compliance with our local health and safety laws. Unfortunately, some vendors have been unwilling to obtain the proper permits and, when permitted, move to the ample locations where it is permissible to vend. Thus, enforcement remains a necessary tool given the dangers to public safety and health. Our enforcement efforts are a collaboration between our Fire Department, Code Enforcement, Police Department, City Attorney’s Office, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the lead agency on proper food handling and permitting. The team has formalized into a unit known as the Directed Action Response Team (DaRT), formerly known as the Pier Vending Task Force. Beyond checking for the appropriate permits, licensing, and location of vending activity, DaRT has also focused on addressing the prohibited use of combustible fuels and dumping of liquid and other waste that present serious dangers to the wooden Pier and coastal environment.

When engaging with vendors in the Pier and Beach areas, the consistent approach of the Code Enforcement, Police Department, and Fire Department personnel assigned to DaRT is to lead with a focus on education and outreach. Indeed, DaRT members complete hundreds of contacts with permitted and unpermitted vendors each week, advising them of the health and safety requirements and local permit regulations, while connecting them to City resources to support permitting efforts and distributing outreach bilingual materials. Since the program’s inception, the City had held bilingual townhalls to educate vendors on the City’s sidewalk vending program and the subsequent changes that have been made. Code Enforcement and DaRT personnel have also distributed hundreds of pages of bilingual written materials advising vendors of the local regulations and how to become a permitted vendor if they have not already done so.

10.B
Packet Pg. 1128
4 of 8
Enforcement activities are undertaken when necessary to protect public safety and health. Over the last three months, the team has completed 101 unpermitted vendor confiscations totaling well over 1200 pounds of food product that was unsafe for human consumption, have issued 149 administrative citations, conducted 145 traffic stops and have removed 59 encampments from along our beaches. The team has made 29 arrests for a variety of criminal offenses such as human trafficking, firearm possession, parolees at large, assault with deadly weapon, drug possession, robbery, no bail warrants for violent offenses, chronic vending and violation of court orders.

The ability of the DaRT to have an immediate and consistent presence on the Pier and beach lots ameliorate the crowding, safety and access issues that are common in this highly trafficked area. At its meeting on June 28, 2022, Council adopted a FY 2022-23 Budget that included funding for DaRT for another year.

Legislative Advocacy
This legislative session, two bills have been introduced in the California State legislature that aim to streamline the permitting process for sidewalk vending and lower the barrier to entry for micro-entrepreneurs while allowing for modest amendments to the allowable enforcement provisions under SB 946. SB 1290, sponsored by the City and authored by Senator Ben Allen, would have made modest amendments to SB 946 to assist cities in deterring unpermitted vending by allowing local jurisdictions to impose increased fines on the fourth repeat violation or beyond. However, Sen. Allen ultimately amended his bill down to reduce it to a “study bill” that would direct the state’s GO-BIZ office to study and report back by January 1, 2025, on the extent of noncompliance with local vending ordinances and recommendations for any needed legislative changes. Unfortunately, the bill was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and is now dead for the legislative session. It will need to be reintroduced in January 2023 if Senator Allen chooses to pursue similar legislation next legislative session.

SB 972, authored by Senators Lena Gonzalez and Maria Elena Durazo and sponsored by sidewalk vendor advocates, is an attempt to reform the California Retail Food Code to enable microentrepreneurs to more easily obtain a health permit and thus lessen the

10.B
Packet Pg. 1129
5 of 8
barriers to entry to sidewalk vending. The City currently has a support if amended position on the bill and has been working with a coalition led by CalTravel along with other cities and the state’s environmental health inspectors to strengthen the bill’s enforcement provisions given our significant concerns that, should SB 972 pass and be signed into law, it could exacerbate some of the challenges with unpermitted food vending effectuated by SB 946. The bill has also passed out of the Senate and will also be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in August.

Outreach & Communications
The City has launched a new comprehensive vending homepage on the City’s website, santamonica.gov/vending, to create seamless access to information in English and Spanish on all vending opportunities in Santa Monica, step-by-step guidance on how to obtain a sidewalk vending permit, information on the City’s enforcement efforts, and an FAQ section. The City is improving signage on the Pier with every change to the vending ordinance, sharing timely content on social media, and proactively engaging the media. Staff have also made significant efforts recently to highlight some of the success stories of our local permitted vendors and their businesses.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Description
04/09/2019
(Attachment B)
Adoption of Santa Monica Sidewalk Vending Ordinance
08/24/2021
(Attachment C)
Adoption of Modifications to the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance 2/22/22
(Attachment D)
Study Session on Sidewalk Vending
Discussion
At their February 22, 2022 Study Session, Council provided feedback to staff that included exploring the creation of designated locations for permitted vending in close proximity to the Santa Monica Pier, identifying ways to support local residents in pursuing new entrepreneurship opportunities, continuing work to advance State legislation related to sidewalk vending, renewing outreach and education efforts

10.B
Packet Pg. 1130
6 of 8
regarding our permit program, exploring expansion of the Licensed Pier Cart Vending Program and reviewing any opportunities to continue to reduce the barriers to meeting the requirements of our Sidewalk Vending Permit Program.

Under the City's current vending ordinance, there is a prohibition on stationary vending in the 100–500-foot “buffer zone” of Palisades Park north of the top of the Pier bridge.

Only roaming vending is permitted in this area. Following direction from Council at the study session and in response to feedback from current permitted vendors, staff is recommending a modest change to the vending ordinance that would also allow for stationary vending in the current 100-500-foot buffer zone, which is a highly trafficked and economically desirable area for vending. Staff is proposing the identification of several fixed locations in Palisades Park. Pending direction from Council, staff will continue to engage the City’s current permitted vendors to develop a rotation-based space allocation system to enable those vendors to have equitable access to this highly desirable area for sales and implement this space allocation system via the Chapter

6.36 administrative regulations.

In addition to allowing for stationary vending in the 100-500-foot buffer zone, permitted sidewalk vendors have expressed a desire to obtain a fixed location on the Pier itself where it would be permissible for them to vend, and have inquired about opportunities to become a licensed Pier Cart vendor through the City’s existing, long-standing program. The RFP for the Pier Licensed Vending Cart program is expected to be open before the end of the calendar year, and staff will strive to identify additional locations on or immediately adjacent to the Pier where additional carts could be added to the program, and current licensed sidewalk vendors could apply for the opportunity to be a City-licensed tenant.

Potential Physical Improvements to Vendor Locations
Through conversations with vendors and others, staff have also identified modest physical enhancements, which, when made, could provide a level, designated space for a vendor and their cart. The cost of providing fixed locations within the 100-500 foot buffer zone in the short term would be minimal (approximately $2,000/space), but

10.B
Packet Pg. 1131
7 of 8
funding would need to be identified for design and implementation. Staff is investigating a range of cost-effective solutions from decomposed granite to a reinforced concrete honeycomb structure, to a more substantial installation of paving stones. If a temporary implementation is successful, these areas could be incorporated into a future CIP enhancement for the repaving of the pedestrian circulation and drainage network in Palisades Park, which was deferred during the FY22/23 budget process.

Vendors have also reported to staff concerns related to safety in Palisades Park and have inquired whether lighting modifications could be made that would further protect public safety in this area. Lighting modifications would be more challenging to implement, and more costly, as the current electrical wiring that services the standards in Palisades Park would need to be replaced for the entire network of historic lighting fixtures. Staff will continue to explore the feasibility and cost of lighting modifications and consider a future CIP submission once those costs have been finalized.

Next Steps
Pending Council direction, staff will update the Sidewalk Vending Administrative Regulations to ensure consistency with the adopted updates to the vending ordinance.

All materials will be translated into Spanish and will be made available on the City’s webpage. Staff will also hold in-person town hall meetings for the City’s permitted vendors and other interested parties to ensure they are informed about the updates to the ordinance and new opportunities for stationary vending in Palisades Park and a potential expansion of the Pier Cart Vending Program.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The monthly vending cart license fee for a cart operating under the Pier Vending Cart Program varies based on seasonality but is approximately $20,000 per year. The City currently receives approximately $284,000 per year from the Pier Vending Cart program and these funds are included in the Pier Fund Budget. Depending on the number of additional carts added to the Pier Cart Vending Program, a revenue adjustment would be made to reflect the additional anticipated revenue from the new tenants.

10.B
Packet Pg. 1132
8 of 8
Prepared By: Stephanie Venegas, Council Office & Legislative Affairs Liaison Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Buffer Zone
B. California SB 946: Safe Sidewalk Vending Act (Web Link) C. April 9, 2019 Staff Report: Comprehensive Sidewalk Vending Program and Emergency Ordinance (Web Link)
D. August 23, 2021 Staff Report: Emergency Ordinance on Public Safety & Environmental Risks Arising from Unlawful Commercial Activity around Santa Monica Pier (Web Link)
E. February 22, 2022: Study Session on Citywide Response to Sidewalk Vending (Web Link)
F. Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization

10.B
Packet Pg. 1133

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 1134 Attachment: Buffer Zone [Revision 2] (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 6.36.040 TO EXPAND

OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATIONARY VENDING IN PALISADES PARK
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 946 into law, which regulates and decriminalizes certain sidewalk vending activities; and
WHEREAS, the City undertook an extensive review of vending activities in light of SB 946; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2607 (CCS), amending Chapter 6.36 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to adopt a comprehensive vending regulatory program, pursuant to the City’s constitutionally authorized charter city police powers and consistent with authorities granted by SB 946; and
WHEREAS, due to the public health, safety, and welfare concerns with vending in Palisades Park, Chapter 6.36, as amended in April 2019, prohibited stationary vending in any portion of Palisades Park within 500 feet of the Ocean Avenue entrance point to the Pier bridge, but allowed roaming sidewalk vending to take place; and

10.B.f
Packet Pg. 1135 Attachment: Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) WHEREAS, Palisades Park, situated between the Pacific Ocean, the Pier bridge, and the City’s bustling downtown, is the crown jewel of the City’s park system and is the most heavily utilized; and
WHEREAS, Palisades Park sits along the edge of the bluffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean providing spectacular and unparalleled views of the coastline; and WHEREAS, based on Palisades Park’s unique aesthetic qualities and unmatched scenic beauty, the City designated the Park as a local Landmark; and WHEREAS, circulation within Palisades Park is limited because it is extremely narrow, and is physically surrounded by downtown streets on three sides and tall bluffs on the fourth;
WHEREAS, the intensity and variety of Palisades Park necessitates regulation to avoid safety hazards and conflicts; and
WHEREAS, ensuring the free flow of pedestrian traffic is particularly important to the safety of the elderly, the very young, the disabled, vision-impaired persons, and others who are less able to navigate through crowds and around obstacles or hazards and who are particularly impacted by having to navigate off and onto curbs when sidewalks or pedestrian paths are blocked; and
WHEREAS, hindrances to the free flow of pedestrian traffic, particularly in the City’s congested public places, such as Palisades Park, may interfere with the work of public safety personnel seeking immediate access to emergency situations and with other work vital to the public health and safety, such as cleaning and maintenance; and

10.B.f
Packet Pg. 1136 Attachment: Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) WHEREAS, because the space available at Palisades Park is limited and heavily utilized, special efforts must be undertaken to maintain it and facilitate their shared use and availability to all; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the City Council held a study session on sidewalk vending at which, among other things, Council heard from the Pier Vending Task Force and various members of the public regarding potential options for allowing vending in Palisades Park near the Pier; and
WHEREAS, since the February 2022 study session, City staff has been studying mechanisms to allow for limited stationary vending within the first 100 to 500 feet of the Ocean Avenue entrance to the Pier in Palisades Park while not presenting the aforementioned public health and safety hazards; and
WHEREAS, City Council now desires to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Section to authorize stationary vending in designated locations within the first 100 to 500 feet of the Ocean Avenue entrance to the Pier in Palisades Park subject to any rotation, spacing, lottery, and similar requirements set forth in administrative regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.36.040 Restricted vending times and locations, is hereby amended to read as follows:

6.36.040 Restricted vending times and locations.
(a) Unless otherwise expressly authorized by or with the consent of the City, no person shall vend on or within, any private property, the Santa Monica

10.B.f
Packet Pg. 1137 Attachment: Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) Pier, a certified farmers’ market, a permitted community event, a permitted filming activity, a bikepath, a street, a driveway, or a public parking lot. (b) No stationary sidewalk vendor shall vend within:
(1) Twenty-five feet of the Third Street Promenade;
(2) The Transit Mall;
(3) The Beach;
(4) Any area exclusively zoned for residential uses;
(5) The 1700 block of Ocean Front Walk;
(6) Any portion of Palisades Park that is within five hundred feet of the Ocean Avenue entrance point to the Pier bridge, except within any designated stationary vending spaces identified in the
administrative regulations and in compliance with any rotation, lottery, or other similar requirements established by administrative regulations applicable to such spaces; or
(7) Any City park during the hours that an exclusive concessionaire is open and operating pursuant to an agreement with the City or other operator of the park.
(c) No roaming sidewalk vendor shall vend in an area exclusively zoned for residential uses or on a sidewalk or pedestrian path directly adjacent to such an area between the hours of nine p.m. and eight a.m. (d) No vehicle vendor shall vend on Main Street between Ocean Park Boulevard and the City’s southern boundary between the hours of one a.m. and three a.m. on a Saturday, a Sunday, St. Patrick’s Day,

10.B.f
Packet Pg. 1138 Attachment: Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) Valentine’s Day, Cinco De Mayo Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Halloween, or New Year’s Day.
(e) The City Manager or designee may adopt administrative regulations imposing additional requirements consistent with this Chapter and all other applicable laws in order to regulate the time, place, and manner of vending.

10.B.f
Packet Pg. 1139 Attachment: Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.B.f
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Chapter 6.36 with Pali Park Authorization (5149 : Modifications to Sidewalk Vending Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.C
1 of 15
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Edward F King, Director, Mobility (DOT)
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending SMMC 3.22 and adding section 3.23 to allow shared mobility services to be provided under a contract agreement with the City
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance to do the following:

1. Amend Section 3.22.090 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to extend the term of the second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program from March 30, 2023, to September 30, 2023; and

2. Create Section 3.23 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to establish a contracting model for shared mobility device services.

Executive Summary
The City of Santa Monica has operated a shared mobility program since 2018. Since July 1, 2021, the City has been in the second pilot program with four companies (Lyft, Spin, Veo, and Wheels) who operate five distinct device types (Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, two-wheeled electric scooters, three-wheeled e-scooters, and sit-down e-scooters).

The second pilot program ends on March 30, 2023. Pursuant to Council’s direction on March 9, 2021, to transition shared mobility services to a contracting model, staff recommends Council adopt the attached ordinance that would take effect on October 1, 2023 and establish that shared mobility device services are only allowed to operate in Santa Monica when contracting with the City. The extension of the current pilot program will provide staff the time necessary to go through the procurement process The

10.C
Packet Pg. 1141
2 of 15
ordinance would extend the second pilot program from its initial termination date on March 30, 2023 to September 30, 2023.

A contracting model is preferred because contracting provides a stronger foundation for cities and companies to work together toward improved outcomes such as affordability of service, improved device safety, and mitigation of bad rider behaviors. This stronger foundation is achieved through relationship-building, defined service level standards, and enhanced incentives, penalties, and fees.

The contracting model will:
• Incorporate a variation of the Administrative Regulations as comprehensive terms and conditions, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) within the contractual agreements with the selected operator(s). • Reduce the number of operators but maintain enough devices to meet rider demand.
• Improve reliability, affordability, and availability of shared mobility options while improving safety, sustainability, and administrative outcomes. • Seek to include multiple device types to meet an array of mobility needs. • Monitor technological modifications to shared mobility vehicles and integrate solutions to mitigate bad rider behavior such as improperly parked vehicles and sidewalk riding.
• Maintain open and productive partnerships between the City and the operator(s). • Generate cost recovery/revenue through innovative partnerships, sponsorships, and revenue sharing models to ensure that costs are recovered to oversee and manage the program.

This staff report requests authority to issue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to implement the contracted model and extend the second pilot program through September 30, 2023, to allow staff time to develop the contracting model, identify

10.C
Packet Pg. 1142
3 of 15
members of the selection committee, complete a procurement process, negotiate with operators, coordinate a transition period, and launch service in October 2023 while maintaining continuity in shared mobility service.

The selection committee will select the recommended shared mobility device operator(s) for the contracting model through an RFP process scheduled for release in Fall 2022. Staff will then return to Council in Summer 2023 to recommend the contract award(s) with the selected operator(s).

Background
Since the 2015 launch of the City-owned Breeze Bike Share system and subsequent rollout of electric shared mobility devices in 2017, shared mobility device services have been a valued component of Santa Monica’s local transportation network. By promoting alternatives to car trips, the shared mobility industry has shifted from an era of disruption to one of integration within Santa Monica’s transportation network. Shared mobility services are ideal for Santa Monica because they provide flexibility, are usable year-round, provide first/last mile connections to the public transit network, and feel safe and reliable for many people to use on the 100+ mile bike network, much of which was installed in the last decade since City Council adopted the Bike Action Plan.

In September 2017, shared e-scooters were introduced by a private operator in Santa Monica. The new shared micromobility devices (e-scooters, e-bikes, etc.) provide loweremission mobility options for short trips around town. These devices aligned with City goals to reduce transportation emissions, mitigate congestion, and improve community members’ access to destinations.

On June 26, 2018 (Attachment A), Council approved the creation of a Shared Mobility Pilot Program to develop new area of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for shared mobility devices in Santa Monica. System performance improved during the first pilot program, which officially launched in September 2018. However, challenges remained in managing the public right-of-way (PROW), encouraging public safety,

10.C
Packet Pg. 1143
4 of 15
adapting old regulations to new business types, and ensuring companies are accountable for public outcomes.

On March 9, 2021 (Attachment G), staff returned to Council to provide an update on the first pilot program and to recommend shifting from a permitted pilot program to a longerterm contract model that would strengthen the City’s partnership with operators. Council directed staff to implement a second Shared Mobility Pilot Program to allow time for COVID-19 related uncertainty to settle and shift to a contracted model on March 31, 2023.

Background Timeline
Date Description Attachment
September 2017 Bird Rides, Inc. e-scooter sharing launched in Santa Monica.

N/A
June 26, 2018 The City formally approved a Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and associated fees to
develop a new area of policy, regulation,
operation, and enforcement for shared mobility
devices in the City.

A
August 28, 2018 The City approved a Shared Mobility public right of way (PROW) usage fee to fund the creation of
infrastructure to improve the safety for riders and
citywide streets.

B
September 17,
2018
The Shared Mobility Pilot Program launched with
Bird, Jump, Lime, and Lyft, all of whom were
selected through a competitive process.

N/A
November 12, 2019 Staff returned to Council to present pilot program outcomes. The program showed high ridership
and utilization, but challenges remained in rider
behavior, PROW management, and provider
regulation.

C
January 28, 2020 Council directed staff to create a second pilot program to build on the successes of the first and
better address challenges.

10.C
Packet Pg. 1144
5 of 15
February 11, 2020 The City extended the term of the first pilot program, and the City subsequently released in
March 2020 a Request for Applications (RFA) for
the second pilot program.

E
May 12, 2020 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the second pilot program was postponed, and the first pilot
program was extended until April 30, 2021. The
Shared Mobility PROW fee was revised from $1
per device per day to $0.20 per trip.

F
November 2020 City-owned Breeze Bike Shared program
terminated, and Lyft launched e-bikes that were
originally permitted under the pilot program but
not initially deployed.

N/A
March 9, 2021 Council directed staff to implement a 21-month second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program.

Then, following the second pilot program, shift
from a temporary permit model to a longer-term
contracting model for shared mobility services in
the City.

G
July 1, 2021 The City launched the second pilot program. N/A May 10, 2022 Staff released an Information Item providing an update on status of the second pilot program.

H
Discussion
The first and second pilot programs were developed to test shared e-scooters and ebikes operated by private companies, using a flexible approach that could be responsive to community needs and technological advancements within an evolving industry. Ridership of shared mobility devices was strong from the first month of the first pilot program, with a total of 3,050,000 trips in 2019. When the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in March 2020, travel throughout the City dramatically declined across all modes. In 2021, during the first six months of the second pilot program, movement in the City continued to be impacted by the pandemic, with shared mobility ridership remaining at only 26% of pre-pandemic levels.

Between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, riders generated 849,916 trips, with a typical trip covering 1.46 miles in 10.1 minutes. While ridership growth has been slow to return to pre-pandemic levels, a core userbase continues to rely on these services for regular

10.C
Packet Pg. 1145
6 of 15
transportation needs. According to a City-issued user survey conducted in January 2022, 43% of riders live in Santa Monica. These local riders make frequent use of shared mobility, with more than half (50.1%) of responding Santa Monica residents saying they use shared e-scooters and e-bikes once per week or more.

Figure 1: Shared Mobility trips by month for all providers, split across calendar years.

Source Mobility Data Specification (MDS) data collected through internal City data pipeline, Remix, and Ride Report.

Shifting to a Contracting Shared Mobility Device Services Model The first and second pilot programs demonstrated rapid adoption and ridership. Looking ahead, Santa Monica will continue to be impacted by private sector company volatility as the industry adapts to financial challenges. As ridership and rider revenue have slowed and financial viability has come under increased scrutiny, many shared mobility operators have had to downsize and/or change operational strategies, including decreasing staffing, service levels and withdrawing from some markets. These trends

10.C
Packet Pg. 1146
7 of 15
are causing cities to consider adjustments to regulatory and partnership structures to ensure long-term reliable, consistent, available, and affordable service.

Multiple cities are shifting away from permitting models to contracts for shared mobility services. Portland, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado, both shifted from permitting models to contracts for shared mobility services. Following a second pilot program for electric scooters, Portland recently launched an RFP to solicit bids for up to two companies.

Currently, Denver has contracts with two companies who operate both e-scooters and e-bikes. Comparing Denver’s shared mobility ridership last quarter before their contracted model took effect – Q1 2021 – with the same quarter one year later, there is a 73% increase in daily rides. Denver communicated to staff that they have seen improvements in operation and service since switching to a contracting model.

Relative to the current permitting model, contracting provides a stronger foundation for cities and companies to work together toward contractually defined outcomes. The contract model focuses regulatory efforts in areas with clearly defined performance expectations and seeks to align them with reporting and enforcement processes. This approach narrows the focus on regulations, with emphasis on oversight and relationship-building with operators through continued development of technologybased tools for management and enforcement. Companies operating under contract have a longer-term commitment to operations than permitted entities, which enables them to prioritize long-term investment in the market. Examples include newer devices, innovative technologies (e.g., technologies to minimize sidewalk riding), transit integration opportunities, supplemental revenue options such as sponsorships, and diverse payment plans that will improve affordability for users.

Affordability for All Continues to be a Challenge
The City requires each permitted provider to offer low-income qualified rates that are easily accessible. The low-income programs each of the four current operators provide are based on requirements related to some combination of home zip code, participation in state or federal means-tested aid programs, and Santa Monica College (SMC) enrollment status. Incentives range from monthly memberships at a reduced price,

10.C
Packet Pg. 1147
8 of 15
reduced or eliminated unlock fees, and per-minute trip costs ranging from $0.05 to $0.29 cents per minute. While these low-income programs offer meaningful affordability benefits for participants, they represent a small share of overall operations in Santa Monica. Based on complete reporting from current operators within Santa Monica, a total of 7,770 trips were taken between October 2021 and April 2022, representing about 2% of the 364,000 overall trips taken in that time.

Beyond the low-income rate offering, the four current operators offer similar payment plan options and charge a similar rate per trip. All four operators charge a $1 unlock fee and between $0.33 - $0.49 per minute of use, a substantial increase from rates charged at the end of the first pilot program ($0.23 - $0.30 per minute). While the second pilot program has delivered cost reduction for some shared mobility options, primarily for low-income riders and casual users, rates continue to be much higher than public transportation options, dominating the overall cost of a multi-modal transit/shared mobility trip. For example, BBB costs $1.10 per trip using the regional Transit Access Pass (TAP) or mobile ticketing ($1.25 cash fare) and Metro bus and rail lines cost $1.75 per trip. By comparison, a typical shared mobility trip that starts within 100 feet of the Downtown E (Expo) Line station lasts 9.5 minutes. Thus, a traveler who takes the train and then finishes their journey via shared an e-scooter or e-bike would pay $1.75 for the rail portion of their trip and as much as $5.66 for the shared mobility portion. In addition to presenting affordability issues, this mismatch of fees limits the role of shared mobility in linking users to transit and advancing the City's goal of multi-modal connectivity.

Reflecting the cost to ride, the current userbase skews wealthy. Based on the January 2022 bi-annual user survey, 47% of participants make more than $100,000 per year and 61% make $75,000 or more. The issue of affordability for users who make less than $100,000 is a barrier for habitual shared mobility use. When asked “What barriers prevent you from using e-scooters or e-bikes in Santa Monica?” 36% of survey respondents overall selected too expensive (the second most selected reason).

For low- and middle-income users, expense is even more of a barrier, with 42% of users who earn less than $100,000 and 47% of users earning less than $75,000 citing cost as

10.C
Packet Pg. 1148
9 of 15
a barrier to entry. Under the current Shared Mobility Pilot Program permit structure, the City does not set rider rates or equity efforts and could not do so without a contract or other binding action. Under a contract model, the City seeks to ensure dependable quality service by negotiating contract terms pertaining to affordability, equity, community engagement, operational service levels, penalties, and contract termination.

Shared Mobility Contract Structure
Consistent with Council direction to pursue a contracted model for the next phase of shared mobility in Santa Monica, staff is preparing to solicit proposals to select and negotiate agreements with up to two vendors to provide shared mobility services under contract with the City. The contracted model will be structured as follows:

1. Contract Term: 3-year (beginning October 2023), with renewal options and final reporting at the end of each contract term.

2. Contract Authority: The proposed ordinance (Attachment I) defines basic program procedures including application and selection and authorizes staff to develop an RFP for soliciting bids from providers. Day-to-day oversight will be managed through negotiated contractual Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

3. New Device and Operations Selection Process: The City will launch a formal RFP selection process to identify no more than two operators with the best available devices to participate in the next iteration of the program. Devices could include e-bicycles, two-wheeled e-scooters, sit-down e-scooters, etc. Proposed devices would have to meet the City’s definition of device and comply with all federal and state laws. The selected operator(s) would begin operations on or after October 1, 2023. The City seeks operators with operational experience, a diversity of high-quality devices, tiered membership options, offer technologies/systems that reduce sidewalk riding and haphazard parking, and provide a commitment to reliable, equitable and affordable access. Provision of devices accessible to people with disabilities would be encouraged.

4. Scale of Program: The number of devices will be negotiated in the contract, adjusted to meet demand and drive ridership growth. Fleet caps could be adjusted based on demonstrated and sustained fleet utilization built into the

10.C
Packet Pg. 1149
10 of 15
contract. Minimums and maximums of fleet counts will be determined in each neighborhood within the City of Santa Monica as defined in contract negotiations.

Operator Selection Priorities
Staff will structure the procurement selection criteria around clearly defined performance expectations with a focus on the outcome priorities described below. Staff will seek to optimize community benefits of the program, and Council direction will assist if/when financial challenges emerge, and tradeoffs need to be considered. To both streamline program administration and facilitate greater investment on the part of individual operators, the City will seek to procure the services of up to two operators.

Performance
Category
Points of Emphasis
Equitable, Affordable,
and Effective
Transportation
• Fare structures and membership options that provide
affordability for users at all income levels
• Easy access to devices throughout the City
• Operations that promote multi-modal connectivity
• Integrated connections with the City of Los Angeles and other regional partners
Safety and Order • Devices that make use of the best available technologies to keep riders and non-riders safe
• Operations and maintenance designed to keep streets
and sidewalks free and clear of parked devices
• Facility upkeep and road safety trainings for operator staff
Environmental
Sustainability
• Fleet operations and device lifecycles that minimize
greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental
harms
• Service levels designed to maximize the displacement of car trips and resulting emissions and congestion
Community Partnership • Active and thoughtful community outreach • Provision of secure data streams to the City for program administration, evaluation, and planning applications
• Corporate stability and the application of a sound and sustainable business model

10.C
Packet Pg. 1150
11 of 15
Performance
Category
Points of Emphasis
System Maintenance • Shared Mobility Drop Zones/Bike Share Station maintenance
• Responsiveness to community concern and complaints
• System distribution/rebalancing
Organizational Stability • Comprehensive data sharing agreements • Information pertaining to revenue and growth projections The procurement will continue to seek improvements in device quality and advanced safety features/technologies that can help to drive safe operations, improve rider behaviors, and reduce occurrences of haphazard parking. Such technologies and operational measures may include geo-fencing prohibited zones, on-device modules that detect and deter sidewalk riding, parking incentives, built-in locking mechanisms, and in-app messaging.

Operator(s) will be required to provide the city with system data compatible with MDS and General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) data application program interfaces (API), along with monthly reporting. The final terms of contractual agreement(s) will be negotiated with the selected operator(s).

Cost Recovery and Sponsorship Options
Transportation services historically struggle to turn profit in the absence of federal, state, and/or local subsidy. For example, the City-owned Breeze Bike Share system was operated under a 5-year contract and was supported by user revenues, sponsorship revenue, and a small amount of City funds. Santa Monica, which currently finds itself at the top of the cost spectrum for shared mobility operators, will need to be flexible and creative to fully recover internal costs of program administration while enabling robust and useful shared mobility services.

As many shared mobility companies are withdrawing from cities due to financial strain, cities who want continued operations are adjusting fees and supporting alternative

10.C
Packet Pg. 1151
12 of 15
revenue generation like sponsorships in exchange for increased service levels, reduced user fares, and expanded equity programs.

Through contract negotiations, the City will ensure full cost recovery for staff time and the associated software services needed to manage the program. Through the procurement process, the City will explore and negotiate a variety of strategies to balance the goals of affordability for users, long-term financial viability of operations, reliable/accessible service, and minimum cost recovery for administrating the program.

With a contract model, operators are better positioned to use sponsorships to offset costs of daily operations, fleet, and infrastructure maintenance. Staff will request details about sponsorship plans as part of applications submitted via the RFP process like the City’s agreement with Hulu, which helped generate revenue to cover Breeze Bike Share operational costs, membership programs for low-income users, and annual memberships. Per City guidelines, the City will approve contract terms which ensure that sponsorship aligns with the City’s Big Blue Bus advertising policy.

Through contract negotiations, sponsorship agreements could also include provisions for revenue sharing with the City of Santa Monica above agreed-upon revenue thresholds. Any sponsorship and/or revenue sharing terms will be coordinated with the Community Partnerships Program that was approved by Council on January 26, 2021.

Staffing Implications
The permitting, oversight, and enforcement required to ensure compliance with regulations of the first and second pilot programs has demanded considerable administrative and enforcement staff commitment consisting of a full-time program coordinator and a limited-term Code Enforcement officer. Following citywide restructuring in mid-2020, the Code Enforcement and Mobility divisions absorbed those duties among existing staff, at times to the detriment of other work efforts and priorities.

It is anticipated that a longer-term contractual partnership with fewer shared mobility companies will lighten administrative oversight and enforcement efforts required to

10.C
Packet Pg. 1152
13 of 15
ensure that the selected shared mobility operator(s) maintain their service level obligations. The implementation of this model will uphold community expectations for public safety, access for all users, affordability, reliability, and data collection/analysis.

The full cost of service oversight and enforcement will be recovered through terms agreed upon as part of contract negotiations and/or revenue sharing. Staff will assess the staffing needs required to administer the program. Any personnel changes would align with the budget process.

In addition to shifting from permitted to contracting shared mobility operations, staff recommends amendments to the Municipal Code to extend the ongoing second Shared Mobility Pilot Program from March 30, 2023, to September 30, 2023. Should Council approve the pilot extension and direct staff to pursue a contracting model, over the next ten months staff would:
• Work with currently permitted operators (Lyft, Spin, Veo and Wheels) to ensure continuous shared mobility service through the remaining term of the second pilot program.
• Complete the scope of work for contractual shared mobility services. • Complete an RFP solicitation process to competitively select up to two operators, pursuant to the procurement process and return to Council at a later date with recommendation of award(s).
• Negotiate contract terms with selected operator(s).
• Return to Council for award of the contract(s) and authorization to execute the contract(s).

Environmental Impact Statement
CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. A project is not subject to CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The proposed

10.C
Packet Pg. 1153
14 of 15
ordinance to change regulation of shared mobility devices from a permit system to a contracted service model would not result in a physical environmental effect on the environment.

In addition, Section 15302 exempts Class 1 projects from CEQA, which include the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures [or] facilities, including streets, sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.” The project consists of the regulation of shared mobility devices within the public right of way because it consists of alternate operation (and permitting) of public streets, sidewalks, and similar facilities that do not create additional automobile lanes. The shared mobility devices are required to be operated within existing public streets, would utilize existing shared mobility stations, and would not necessitate the construction of new vehicle travel lanes for operation.

Therefore, the project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption.

Furthermore, Section 15308 also provides an exemption for Class 8 projects, which include actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for the protection of the environment.

The proposed ordinance is intended to regulate shared mobility devices for the protection of the environment, including people. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline sections 15302 and 15308.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. The new program to be developed will provide for full cost recovery so that all costs to administer the program, as detailed in the Staffing Implications section, will be cost neutral and covered by revenues from the permanent program. Staff will return to Council as part of the biennial budget process if specific budget actions are required in the future.

10.C
Packet Pg. 1154
15 of 15
Prepared by: Barbara Jacobson, Transportation Planning Associate Prepared By: Trevor Thomas, Transportation Planning Associate Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Staff Report 3126 - June 26, 2018 (Web Link)
B. Staff Report 3134 - August 28, 2018 (Web Link)
C. Staff Report 3615 - November 12, 2019 (Web Link)
D. Staff Report 3877- January 28, 2020 (Web Link)
E. Staff Report 4000 – February 11, 2020 (Web Link)
F. Staff Report 4089 - May 12, 2020 (Web Link)
G. Staff Report 4389 – March 9, 2021 (Web Link)
H. Shared Mobility Program Update July 2021-March 2022 Information Item – May 10, 2022 (Web Link)
I. 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt J. Written Comment

10.C
Packet Pg. 1155
1 City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL SECTION 3.22.090 TO

EXTEND THE TERM OF THE SECOND SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM FROM MARCH 30, 2023 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2023, AND CREATING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.23 TO ESTABLISH A

CONTRACTING MODEL SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in September 2017, shared electric scooters were introduced by a private operator in Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, in recognizing that a regulated shared mobility device program could be a valued component of Santa Monica’s local transportation network by promoting alternatives to car trips, in June 2018, the City approved a Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program and associated fees to develop a new area of policy, regulation, operation, and enforcement for shared mobility devices in the City; and WHEREAS, in March 2021, Council adopted a Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program, and also directed staff to, upon the conclusion of the Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program, shift from a temporary permitting model to a longer-term contracting model with fewer operators for shared mobility services in the City; and

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 2 WHEREAS, the contracting model focuses regulatory efforts in areas with clearly defined performance expectations while seeking to align them with reporting and enforcement processes; and also narrows the focus on regulations, with emphasis on oversight and relationship-building with operators through continued development of technology-based tools for management and enforcement; and WHEREAS, although the City will now contract directly with Shared Mobility Device System operators instead of issuing permits, the Santa Monica Municipal Code must still be amended to continue prohibiting certain shared mobility device conduct for both authorized operators and non-authorized operators.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3.22.090 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.22.090 Pilot program term.

Permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall take effect on July 1, 2021, and be of no further force or effect beyond March 30 September 30, 2023, unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City.

SECTION 2. Chapter 3.23 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:

3.23.020 Definitions.
(a) “Abandon” shall mean leaving an item unattended for any length of time. (b) “Operator” shall mean any person or business entity selected by the City to operate a Shared Mobility Device System pursuant to this Chapter.

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 3 (c) “Public area” shall mean any outdoor area that is open to the public for public use, whether owned or operated by the City or a private party. (d) “Public right-of-way” shall mean any public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway, sidewalk, or street that is owned, granted by easement, operated, or controlled by the City.
(e) “Shared mobility device” shall mean any transportation device by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn, that is displayed, offered or placed for rent in any public area or public right-of-way and that complies with all Federal and State of California laws, except that a “shared mobility device” does not include any device being vended or made available for rent exclusively from a vehicle pursuant to a valid City vending permit; a car share vehicle, as defined by Chapter 3.06 of this Code; a moped, as defined by California Vehicle Code Section 406; a device authorized by the City bike share system pursuant to Chapter 3.20 of this Code; a taxicab as regulated in Chapter

6.49 of this Code; a pedicab as regulated in Chapter 6.50 of this Code; or a device operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. (f) “Shared mobility device system” shall mean the deployment, maintenance, service, storage, or recovery of one or more Shared Mobility Device that is being vended or made available for rent or other commercial use in the City of Santa Monica.

3.23.030 Prohibited Conduct regarding operation of a Shared Mobility Device or Shared Mobility Device System
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no person shall:
(a) Display, offer or make available for rent any shared mobility device within the City, unless the shared mobility device is part of a shared mobility device system

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 4 operated by a person or company contracting with the City for shared mobility device services in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; (b) Abandon a shared mobility device not authorized by this Chapter in the public right-of-way or a public area in such a way that the device is available for rent; or (c) Abandon a shared mobility device in the public right-of-way or a public area in a manner that: (1) obstructs travel upon or blocks access to a public right-of-way; (2) poses an immediate public safety hazard; or (3) is otherwise prohibited by applicable laws or administrative regulations;
(d) Engage in any sports or recreational activity with any shared mobility device that endangers public health or safety or threatens injury to persons, or damage to property.

3.23.040 Limitations on City liability
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City shall not assume any liability whatsoever with respect to the operation of any shared mobility device system by shared mobility device operators contracting with the City. As a condition of being awarded a contract to operate a shared mobility device system, a bidder shall be required to meet all of the following conditions:
(a) The bidder must execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, defend (at applicant’s sole cost and expense), and hold harmless the City, and its council, council members, boards, board members, commissions, commission members, task forces, task force members, officers, officials, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents from any and all claims, losses, damages, injuries, or liabilities which arise out of, or which are in any way related to, the

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 5 operation of a shared mobility device system; the classification by the operator of any individuals or entities performing services for the operator as employees or contractors; or the alleged violation of any Federal, State or local laws by the bidder or any of its officers, managers, employees, contractors, or agents.
(b) Maintain insurance at coverage limits, and with conditions thereon determined necessary and appropriate from time to time, as determined by the City’s Risk Manager and name the City of Santa Monica as additional insured. The bidder’s insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail has been given to the City. (c) Reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorney fees and costs, which it may be required to pay as a result of any legal challenge arising out of or in any way related to any claim, loss, damage, injury, or liability as to which the bidder has an obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City pursuant to Section 3.23.040(a) above. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such legal challenge, but such participation shall not relieve any of the obligations imposed hereunder.

3.23.050 Impoundment of devices
(a) A shared mobility device that is displayed, offered, or made available for rent, or abandoned, in the public right-of-way or a public area in violation of Section

3.23.030 shall be subject to immediate impoundment by the City. (b) The City Council may adopt impound fees by Resolution, which shall reflect the City’s enforcement, investigation, storage, and impound costs.

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 6 (c) No person shall retrieve any impounded shared mobility device except upon demonstrating proper proof of ownership of the device and payment of applicable impound fees.

3.23.060 Enforcement
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars, or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars per violation or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to administrative fines and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.09 and Chapter

1.10 of this Code.
(c) Any person convicted of violating this Chapter in a criminal case, or found to be in violation of this Chapter in a civil or administrative case brought by a law enforcement agency, shall be ordered to reimburse the City and other participating law enforcement agencies their full investigative costs.

SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 7 portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.C.i
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: 3.23 ContractingSharedMobilityOrdinance 8.23.2022 hvt [Revision 1] (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 8/23 council meeting item 10C: YES to affordable and equitable bikeshare From: Allon Percus <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 10:19 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Kyle Kozar <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: 8/23 council meeting item 10C: YES to affordable and equitable bikeshare

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
I am writing concerning item 10C on the council meeting agenda for August 23rd. As a Santa Monica resident, I SUPPORT the staff recommendation for a contracting model for shared mobility services.

With the closure of the Breeze bikeshare system, shared mobility in Santa Monica currently suffers from two fatal flaws:
1) It is prohibitively expensive to use on a regular basis. 2) Youth under 18 years of age are completely excluded from using it.

I urge the council to move as quickly as possible to restore an affordable bikeshare system to Santa Monica. Furthermore, I urge the city to ensure that the system will be available to teenagers (under the responsibility of an adult, if needed), as are most public bikeshare systems such as LA Metro Bikeshare. As a basic matter of equity and public health, our youth deserve every possible encouragement to use active rather than automotive transportation.

Best wishes,
Allon Percus
1105 Centinela Ave.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 10.C
08/23/22
1 of 3 Item 10.C
08/23/22

10.C.j
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Written Comment (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) Santa Monica City Council
Regular Meeting
8/23/2022
Public Comment
Re: Agenda Item 10.C - Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending SMMC 3.22 and adding section 3.23 to allow shared mobility services to be provided under a contract agreement with the City
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Veo is supportive of both staff recommendations in moving towards a contracted model for shared mobility device services.

As one of the City’s current shared mobility providers, Veo is grateful to serve the Santa Monica community and proud to call Santa Monica our home. Just over a year ago, Veo launched its state-of-the-art class II e-bikes and stand-up scooters in the City of Santa Monica. We’ve been busy ever since.

Earlier this year Veo moved its headquarters to Santa Monica, specifically to Third Street Promenade in the heart of the city. We’ve more than doubled our local headquarters staff and have plans to continue hiring locally.

We have built strong, meaningful relationships with community leaders and organizations, learning from them and following their lead in delivering a micromobility program that suits the needs of our community. Forming meaningful and long-lasting relationships has - and always will be - a critical part of Veo’s ethos.

Building trust and working cooperatively with the community have resulted in tremendous success in device utilization. Our Cosmo class II e-bikes and Astro stand-up devices account for a significant portion of the pilot program’s aggregate ridership totals.

Veo has truly made Santa Monica its home, and we have felt the love returned from the community in being voted Most Loved Micromobillity Vendor during the Most Loved 2022 campaign.

The move towards a longer-term contracted model is an astute and welcome evolution of the program. However, there are two critical points for consideration that we believe should be included in discussion as the City moves to extend the current pilot and issue a competitive RFP for contracted services:

1. Issue no new permits during the extension phase of the pilot program: It is inferred, but not explicitly mentioned, that the City will Item 10.C
08/23/22
2 of 3 Item 10.C
08/23/22

10.C.j
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Written Comment (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) continue to work with only the four current shared mobility operators. The City’s original procurement process for the current iteration of the pilot program was incredibly thorough and judicious. Potentially issuing a temporary permit for only a few months to a fifth operator will only confuse the public and micromobility users. Additionally, bringing in a new operator may detrimentally affect the perception of the program as the new operator lags in ramping up operations, familiarizing themselves with local regulations, and building the working relationships necessary to operate successfully in the City and with local regulators.

2. Include an employee-based operation model as a program selection priority: The state of the micromobility industry has evolved a lot over the past five years. Veo firmly believes that it is incumbent on a micromobility provider to not only be a responsible operator, but a responsible employer as well. This means hiring local employees to carry out all aspects of operations - from battery charging, to vehicle maintenance, to device rebalancing. Veo hires W2 employees and offers them full benefits starting Day 1 on the job. Not only is being a job creator and working to uplift one’s local community socially and ethically responsible, but it's also responsible from a safety aspect as well. No franchise or gig economy worker should have to utilize their private residence or lease their own warehouse to repair and charge batteries. Vehicle operations should be conducted by trained employees in a controlled, safe environment, with constant and consistent supervision. The City has done a commendable job in standing up fair program regulations that work for the operator and the community. A full W2 workforce is the best solution to maintaining a cohesive and tidy shared mobility program amongst operators and on the streets of Santa Monica. The City should prioritize the creation of good, stable jobs with full employee benefits from its contracted shared mobility providers.

Sincerely,
Nick Efron
Policy & Partnerships Manager, Veo
Santa Monica, CA
Item 10.C
08/23/22
3 of 3 Item 10.C
08/23/22

10.C.j
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Written Comment (5160 : Contracted Model for Shared Mobility) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.D
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Modifying SMMC 4.12.105 Concerning Amplified Sound in Ocean View Park
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance to the City’s amplified sound ordinance, Section 4.12.105 of the Municipal Code, to prohibit amplified sound in Ocean View Park, and potentially other areas Council may specify by resolution.

Summary
In response to resident complaints and a Councilmember Discussion item from September 2021, Staff prepared for Council consideration an ordinance to prohibit amplified sound in Ocean View Park, which is adjacent to residential buildings.

Residents have complained about amplified sound there, typically occurring on Sunday afternoons.

Background
Bands regularly play music in Ocean View Park utilizing sound amplification. Potentially due to the configuration of the improved land and the adjacent residential buildings, the occupants complain the sound level is excessive in their apartments. The bands do accept donations from the public while playing.

Broader ordinance concepts can prohibit all amplified sound without a permit. Many cities handle the issue by requiring permits. However, administration of permitting and

10.D
Packet Pg. 1166
2 of 3
enforcement could be resource intensive for staff, and could lead to legal challenges, as applied to particular circumstances.

Discussion
The First Amendment requires limitations on protected expression, which includes playing music in public, to serve a legitimate purpose, be narrowly tailored, and allow for ample alternative opportunities for expression.

The proposed ordinance does not limit playing music without amplification. The purpose is to avoid the amplified sound from being a regular nuisance to the adjacent occupants.

The ordinance is narrowly tailored as it applies to only one park area out of all the public properties in the City, and therefore also allows for many alternate areas to play music with amplification. Also, even within this park, amplified sound may be authorized pursuant to the terms of a Community Events Permit.

Financial Impacts
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. Enforcement will be done by existing staff and within existing approved budget. The only financial impact would be to enforce the ordinance, which is not expected to be significant. There are other limitations on activities in City parks, which also require resources to enforce, so the incremental costs implementing this ordinance are anticipated to be minimal.

Prepared By: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council

10.D
Packet Pg. 1167
3 of 3
Attachments:

A. Proposed Ordinance

10.D
Packet Pg. 1168
1 of 3
City Council Meeting August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MODIFYING SECTION 4.12.105 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING AMPLIFIED SOUND WHEREAS, the use of sound amplification can be regulated so that it does not unduly burden the community while providing adequate alternative means of expression; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to limit amplified sound in certain areas so they may be less impacted by excessive sound; and
WHEREAS, limiting amplified sound only in certain areas of the City allows for ample alternative means and areas for expressive activities.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.105 is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.12.105 Restrictions on sound amplifying equipment.
(a) No person shall use or operate sound amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway located in Noise Zone I after ten p.m. and before seven a.m. on weekdays or eight a.m. on weekends.
(b) No person who is not stationary while using or operating sound amplifying equipment shall use or operate such equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway located in Noise Zone 1 between eight p.m. and ten p.m. (c) If a person who is stationary under subsection (b) uses or operates sound amplifying equipment at the same location or within five hundred feet of that location in Noise Zone 1 on more than two days in any seven-day period, the person shall be limited to using or operating the sound amplifying equipment, whether constantly or intermittently, for no longer than a single forty-five minute period between eight p.m. and ten p.m. on the third through seventh day

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (5269 : Amplified Sound Ordinance) 2 of 3
during that seven-day period.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), this Section shall not apply to the use or operation of sound amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway immediately abutting a property with a commercial use, as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.030(B), in Noise Zone I.
(e) Except as may be provided in an approved Community Events Permit, no person shall use or operate sound amplifying equipment within Ocean View Park or other City property the Council may designate by resolution. Appropriate signage shall be placed to notify the public of the prohibition.
(f) Law enforcement personnel, firefighting personnel, emergency health care providers, and employees, agents, or representatives of the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section when engaged in official business of or on behalf of the City.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (5269 : Amplified Sound Ordinance) 3 of 3
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Doug Sloan, City Attorney

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (5269 : Amplified Sound Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.E
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.112 to Add Regulations for Street Performers on Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Broadway Adjacent to the Third Street Promenade
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Chapter 6.112 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) to:

1. Apply the regulations set forth therein to a “buffer zone,” consisting of Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Broadway between Second and Fourth Courts;

2. Eliminate the 120-foot restrictions in 6.112.050 and replace with a general prohibition against performing within the same block after a certain amount of time; and

3. Make other minor edits for consistency with other provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

Executive Summary
Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to encouraging expression and the arts through street performance. Permitting for street performers is currently required at Third Street Promenade, the Pier, and the Transit Mall and only when those very popular, relatively small and physically constrained spaces are subject to crowding. The sidewalks on Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Broadway between Second Court and Fourth Court (the proposed “buffer zone”) are adjacent to the Third Street Promenade, are heavily traveled, and experience pedestrian traffic in similar volume to areas already covered by the ordinance. Recently, the City has observed performers just outside the Third Street

10.E
Packet Pg. 1172
2 of 5
Promenade, and in the proposed “buffer zone,” attracting crowds that have spilled over from the sidewalk into the street, causing safety concerns for both pedestrians and performers. The proposed amendments seek to apply the regulations of Chapter 6.112 to the “buffer zone” in a manner consistent with those for the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Pier and Transit Mall in order to accurately reflect the conditions present in those locations and to otherwise protect and enhance the appearance and appeal of the City’s most popular public spaces, support the arts, and maintain public health, safety, and welfare. For ease of enforcement and clarity for potential performers, the proposed amendments also eliminate the 120-foot restrictions set forth in section

6.112.050 and replace them with a general prohibition from performing within the same block after the proscribed amount of time. Lastly, the proposed amendments make other minor revisions for consistency with other provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

Discussion
The City of Santa Monica has worked since the late 1980s to create and refine street performance laws which recognize performers’ value to the community, respect constitutional rights, protect the free flow of pedestrian traffic and the safety of residents, workers, and visitors in crowded public spaces, shield local businesses from unfair competition, and preserve the aesthetic qualities of public space. For more than 30 years, the City has encouraged street performance in its most popular venues, including, the Promenade, the Pier, and the Transit Mall adjacent to the Promenade. Consistent with the City’s core value of supporting the arts with First Amendment protections, Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Chapter 6.112 sets forth the City’s limited regulations for street performers at those venues. In compliance with law on this topic, regulations on the time, place, and manner of performance in those venues have been undertaken only for the judicially sanctioned purposes of protecting public safety in these unique and often crowded public spaces, preserving the aesthetics of those spaces, and protecting adjacent merchants.

10.E
Packet Pg. 1173
3 of 5
The necessity of establishing, maintaining and enforcing regulations governing street performance in the City’s public spaces is often exacerbated by certain of the City’s defining characteristics, including its extreme density and appeal to visitors. Thus, unregulated street performance creates a safety hazard by impeding or blocking the free flow of pedestrian traffic, by attracting large stationery crowds which block passage, and by impairing access for safety personnel. Unregulated street performance creates safety hazards for seniors, the disabled, young children, and others with limited mobility.

The City’s most popular public spaces in the Downtown area are Third Street Promenade, the Santa Monica Pier and the Transit Mall, and maintaining safe circulation in these spaces is an ongoing challenge. The Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) considers the Third Street Promenade and the area immediately adjacent to the Third Street Promenade, to be the pedestrian and economic heart of the City with a vibrant urban atmosphere supported by a broad mix of building types, office space, entertainment, retail, restaurants, cafes, salons and exercise studios. The DCP supports the continued expansion of the central retail district by increasing the energy and pedestrian traffic on streets around the Promenade. The sidewalks on Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Broadway between Second Court and Fourth Court (“buffer zone”) are adjacent to the Third Street Promenade and are heavily traveled. The DCP demonstrates that these blocks experience pedestrian traffic in similar volume.

10.E
Packet Pg. 1174
4 of 5
Downtown Community Plan
Illustration 3.2 – Pedestrian Volumes
Recently, City staff has observed performers near Third Street Promenade, in areas just outside the current regulations under Chapter 6.112, attracting crowds that have spilled over from the sidewalk into the street, causing significant safety concerns for the crowds, the performers, other pedestrians, drivers, and local business owners. Applying regulations to the “buffer zone” that are consistent with those for the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Pier and Transit Mall will accurately reflect the conditions in this area and will continue to protect and enhance the appearance and appeal of the City’s most popular public spaces and support the arts, while also continuing to maintain public health, safety, and welfare. Thus, staff recommends amending Chapter 6.112 to apply regulations to the “buffer zone” consistent with those for the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Pier and Transit Mall.

Additionally, City Council has expressed concerns with the distance requirements set forth in 6.112.050 as being unduly burdensome to allow for both compliance by the

10.E
Packet Pg. 1175
5 of 5
street performers and enforcement by the police department. Accordingly, proposed amendments to this section eliminate the distance requirement previously measured in feet to a more general prohibition of performing within the same neighborhood block.

Lastly, the proposed ordinance makes other minor revisions for consistency with other provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. These include eliminating provisions no longer in existence and otherwise updating terminology to be consistent with other provisions of the Municipal Code.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no direct financial impacts attendant upon the adoption of this ordinance.

Although there are ongoing costs related to enforcing street performance laws, it is not anticipated that these would be significantly impacted by the proposed changes in the law.

Prepared By: Michelle Hugard, Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112
B. Written Comment

10.E
Packet Pg. 1176
1 City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.112 CONCERNING

STREET PERFORMERS ADJACENT TO THE THIRD STREET PROMENADE WHEREAS, street performers and street vendors of communicative materials enrich the ambiance of Santa Monica’s unique and stimulating public spaces and their presence in the City’s most popular spaces reflects Santa Monica’s commitment to the arts and to the free exchange of ideas; and
WHEREAS, despite their value to the community, street performance and vending of communicative materials occurring on crowded public thoroughfares can jeopardize public safety and welfare by blocking traffic, impairing emergency ingress and egress, causing nuisances from excessive sound, creating unfair competition, and adversely affecting aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has worked since the late 1980s to create and refine street performance laws which recognize performers’ value to the community, respect constitutional rights, protect the free flow of pedestrian traffic and the safety of residents, workers, and visitors in crowded public spaces, shield local businesses from unfair competition, and preserve the aesthetic qualities of public space; and WHEREAS, the necessity of establishing, maintaining and enforcing regulations governing street performance in the City’s public spaces is exacerbated by certain of the City’s defining characteristics, including its extreme density and appeal to visitors; and

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 2 WHEREAS, unregulated street performance creates a safety hazard by impeding or blocking the free flow of pedestrian traffic, by attracting large stationery crowds which block passage, and by impairing access for safety personnel; and WHEREAS, unregulated street performance creates particular safety hazards for seniors, the disabled, young children, and others with limited mobility; and WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Chapter 6.112 sets forth the City’s regulations for street performers; and
WHEREAS, the City’s most popular public spaces in the Downtown are the Third Street Promenade, the Santa Monica Pier and the Transit Mall, and maintaining safe circulation in these spaces is an ongoing challenge; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Community Plan considers the Third Street Promenade and the area immediately adjacent to the Third Street Promenade, to be the pedestrian and economic heart of the City with a vibrant urban atmosphere supported by a broad mix of building types, office space, entertainment, retail, restaurants, cafes, salons and exercise studios; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Community Plan supports the continued expansion of the central retail district by increasing the energy and pedestrian traffic on streets around the Promenade; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.112 includes special regulations for the Third Street Promenade, Transit Mall and Pier to ensure the safety of performers, their audience, and the general public and to prevent unreasonable interference with residents’ enjoyment of peace and quiet in their homes or the ability of businesses to operate and conduct their business; and

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 3 WHEREAS, the sidewalks on Broadway, Santa Monica Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, and Wilshire Boulevard, between Second Court and Fourth Court (“buffer zone”) are adjacent to the Third Street Promenade and heavily traveled; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Community Plan demonstrates that these blocks experience pedestrian traffic similar in volume to the Transit Mall; and WHEREAS, the City has observed performers just outside the Third Street Promenade attracting crowds that spilled over from the sidewalk into the street, causing safety concerns; and
WHEREAS, applying regulations to the buffer zone that are consistent with those for the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Pier, and Transit Mall will accurately reflect the conditions in the buffer zone and will protect and enhance the appearance and appeal of the City’s most popular public spaces, support the arts, and maintain public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 6.112 to apply regulations to the buffer zone consistent with those for the Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Pier, and Transit Mall and make other minor revisions for consistency with other provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, for ease of enforcement and clarity for potential performers, City Council also desires to eliminate the 120 foot restrictions set forth in section 6.112.050 and replace them with a general prohibition from performing within the same block after the proscribed amount of time.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 6.112 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 6.112 STREET PERFORMERS

6.112.010 Purpose.

The City Council finds that the existence in the City of street performers provides a public amenity that enhances the character of the City and seeks to encourage such performances in a manner consistent with the overall public interest. The City Council also recognizes that street performers seek to and do draw crowds to their performance.

This can create serious safety problems by impacting the ability of pedestrians to move safely on sidewalks and through cross walks and impeding the response time of safety personnel. It can also impact access to and egress from businesses. Cognizant that street performers are engaged in First Amendment activities, this Chapter imposes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on street performers to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of performers, their audience, and the general public and to prevent unreasonable interference with residents’ enjoyment of peace and quiet in their homes or the ability of businesses to operate and conduct their business.

6.112.020 Definitions.

For purposes of this Chapter, the following words or phrases shall have the following meanings:
(a) Buffer Zone. The sidewalks on Broadway, Santa Monica Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, and Wilshire Boulevard, between Second Court and Fourth Court.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 5 (ba) Charge. To require someone to pay a fee or to set, negotiate or establish a fee for a performance. Seeking voluntary contributions through passing around a hat, leaving open an instrument case or other receptacle, or soliciting donations after a performance is not a charge.
(c) Community event. Any event that has obtained a community event permit pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.68.
(db) Handcrafts. Objects made either by hand or with the help of devices used to shape or produce the objects through such methods as weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, and beading including, but not limited to, objects such as jewelry, pottery, silver work, leather goods, and trinkets. Handcrafts are not likely to communicate a message, idea, or concept to others, are often mass produced or produced with limited variation, and often have functional utility apart from any communicative value they might have. Handcrafts do not include visual art.
(ec) Perform. To engage in any of the following activities on public property:
playing musical instruments, singing, dancing, acting, pantomiming, puppeteering, juggling, reciting, engaging in magic, creating visual art in its entirety, or similar artistic endeavors. “Perform” shall not include: (1) the provision of personal services such as hair weaving or massage; (2) the application of substances to others’ skin, including, but not limited to, paints, dyes, and inks; (3) the completion or other partial creation of visual art; (4) the creation of visual art which is mass produced or produced with limited variation; or (5) the creation of handcrafts. This list of exclusions is not intended to be exhaustive. (fd) Performer. An individual who “performs” on public property to provide public entertainment. Indicia of being a performer include, but are not limited to, setting

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 6 up performance equipment; staging or orienting the performance towards the public; performing in the same location for an extended period of time; performing in the public for multiple days; seeking voluntary contributions through passing around a hat or leaving open an instrument case or other receptacle; and soliciting donations after a performance. (ge) The Pier. The Santa Monica Pier, consisting of both the Newcomb Pier and the Municipal Pier, protruding from the Santa Monica State Beach at the southwesterly terminus of Colorado Avenue, and extending for approximately two thousand one hundred thirty-five feet into the Santa Monica Bay. The Pier is divided into three performance areas: the Center Performance area, the Breezeway Performance area, and the General Performance area. The boundaries of each of these performance areas are delineated in Exhibit A to Resolution Number 9704 (CCS), or any successor resolution thereto.
(hf) Sculpture. A three dimensional work of art which is created through shaping solid material such as wood, stone, clay or metal by carving, modeling, or similar methods.
(ig) Third Street Promenade. Third Street, including the sidewalks on Third Street, between the southeasterly line of Wilshire Boulevard and the northwesterly line of Arizona Avenue, and between the southeasterly line of Arizona Avenue and the northwesterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard, and between the southeasterly line of Santa Monica Boulevard and the northwesterly line of Broadway. (jh) Transit Mall. The sidewalks on Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway from the east side of Ocean Avenue to the west side of Fifth Street.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 7 (ki) Visual Art. Sculptures or drawings and paintings, applied to paper, cardboard, canvas, or other similar or technologically equivalent medium through the use of brush, pastel, crayon, pencil, stylus, or other similar object.

6.112.030 Rules and regulations.
(a) Subject also to Sections 6.112.050, and 6.112.060, no performer may perform:
(1) Within ten feet of any bus stop;
(2) Within ten feet of any street corner or a marked pedestrian crosswalk;
(3) Within ten feet of the outer edge of any entrance of any business, including, but not limited to: doors, vestibules, driveways, outdoor dining area entries, and emergency exits, during the hours that any business on the premises is open to the public or to persons having or conducting lawful business within those premises;
(4) Within ten feet of the outer edge of any entrance to any residence; (5) Within twenty feet of the outer edge of any stairs or ramp on the south side of the Pier;
(6) Within ten feet of the outer edge of the roadway leading to the Pier; (7) On the wooden landing or wooden walkways immediately north of the Pier.
(b) No person may perform on the Third Street Promenade, the Pier, or the Transit Mall, or in the Buffer Zone without first obtaining a performance permit issued by the City pursuant to Section 6.112.040 unless the performance is conducted on Monday

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 8 through Friday prior to twelve noon and that day is not a holiday as defined in subsection (q) of this Section.
(c) A performer and the performer’s equipment may not block or obstruct the free and safe movement of pedestrians. If a sufficient crowd gathers to observe a performer such that the passage of the public through a public area is blocked or obstructed, a Police Officer or Fire Official may disperse that portion of the crowd that is blocking or obstructing the passage of the public. If a performer cannot conduct a performance in a location without blocking or obstructing the passage of the public, a Police Officer or Fire Official may cause the performer to leave the location or require that the performer relocate his or her equipment, but shall not prevent the performer from occupying another location in compliance with this Chapter. (d) There shall be no charge for a performance. Money given for a performance shall be on a donation only basis. A performer shall perform whether or not the performer receives compensation for the performance. A performer may not charge a set fee for the performance or use aggressive measures to solicit donations. For purposes of this subsection, aggressive measures shall include: blocking or impeding the passage of the solicitee intentionally; touching the solicitee with the intent to intimidate or coerce; following the solicitee, going behind, ahead or alongside of him or her, with the intent to intimidate or coerce; threatening the solicitee, by word or gesture, with physical harm; or abusing the solicitee with words which are offensive and inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

A performer shall not be required to obtain a vendor permit pursuant to Chapter

6.36 or a business license pursuant to Chapter 6.04. Other Federal, State, and local laws

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 9 may apply to this activity and to sales, including, without limitation, local, State, and Federal tax laws. It is each performer’s sole responsibility to ensure that he or she is familiar with and complies with such laws.
(e) No performer shall construct, erect, or maintain any stage, platform, or similar structure for use during any performance unless the stage or platform:
(1) Is integral to the performance and the performance only takes place on the stage;
(2) Does not exceed four feet by four feet and one-quarter inch in height; (3) Is removed from the public way when the performer is not performing;
(4) Has beveled edges.
(f) No performer shall use any knife, sword, torch, flame, axe, saw, or other object that can cause serious bodily injury to any person, or engage in any activity, including, but not limited to, acrobatics, tumbling, or cycling, that can cause serious bodily injury to any person.
(g) No performer shall use any generator, wet cell battery with removable fill caps, or any other power source that poses a fire or public safety hazard. No performer shall connect or maintain an electrical cord to an adjacent building or to a City power source.
(h) No performer may litter his or her performance site. (i) No performer shall utilize or prevent the public from utilizing any public benches, waste receptacles, or other street furniture during the performance.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 10 (j) No minor under the age of sixteen can perform unless the minor is at all times accompanied by a responsible adult eighteen years of age or older, has obtained an entertainment work permit issued by the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California and maintains the permit in his or her possession at the time of the performance.
(k) No performer shall place any object on a public sidewalk which causes less than a four-foot contiguous sidewalk width being kept clear for pedestrian passage. (l) No performer shall perform with more instruments, props, equipment, merchandise, or other items than the performer can reasonably transport and remove all at once within three minutes.
(m) No performer shall place his or her instruments, props, equipment, merchandise, or other items on a public sidewalk, public street, or public right-of-way for more than two hours without performing in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (n) A performer shall stay with his or her instruments, props, equipment, merchandise, or other items at all times that these items are on a public sidewalk, public street, or public right-of-way.
(o) No performer shall perform in contravention of the allowable noise standards established by Chapter 4.12 and Chapter 6.116 of this Code. (p) No performer shall block or obstruct a curb cut.
(q) The following formula establishes the special performance hours that apply during specified holidays on the Third Street Promenade, the Buffer Zone, the Transit Mall, and the Pier:

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 11 (1) If the holiday follows a weekend and the next day is a workday, then the holiday shall be treated as if it were Sunday and the day preceding the holiday shall be treated as if it were Saturday.
(2) If the holiday precedes a weekend, then the holiday shall be treated as if it were Saturday and the preceding day shall be treated as if it were Friday. (3) If the holiday occurs during midweek, and is surrounded by workdays, then the holiday shall be treated as if it were Sunday and the day preceding the holiday shall be treated as if it were Friday.

The following is a list of holidays which trigger the application of this subsection:

New Year’s Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Columbus Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The City Council may by resolution add to this list of holidays.
(r) No performer shall perform outside designated performance zones on the Third Street Promenade and the Pier, as established by resolution of the City Council.

6.112.040 Performance permit.
(a) To receive a performance permit, a person must complete and file with the City a performance permit application on a form approved by the City. The applicant must provide the following information:
(1) The applicant’s name;
(2) The applicant’s address;
(3) Proof of the Identity of the Applicant. This identification must contain a photograph of the applicant. Acceptable forms of identifications shall

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 12 include, but not be limited to, a driver’s license, student identification card, or passport;
(4) A detailed description of the nature of the act to be performed; (5) A detailed description of any instrument(s) or prop(s) which will be used by the performer(s);
(6) A minor under the age of sixteen shall provide a copy of an entertainment work permit issued to the minor by the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California and shall identify the responsible adult(s) who will be with the minor at all times that the minor is performing. (b) The performance permit will be issued annually commencing on January 1st of each calendar year.
(c) Upon receipt of a written application for a performance permit, a performance permit shall be approved within three business days of the filing of a fully completed application, unless one of the following findings is made:
(1) The applicant has knowingly made a false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of fact to the City in the application process; (2) The application does not contain the information required by this Chapter;
(3) The applicant has not satisfied the requirements of this Chapter. (d) In addition to requiring compliance with all provisions of this Chapter, the City may condition the approval of a performance permit on the applicant’s compliance with other provisions of the City’s Municipal Code which are applicable to the performance.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 13 (e) The City may revoke or suspend a performance permit upon the commission of the second violation either of this Chapter, Chapter 3.74 of this Code, or of permit conditions within a six-month period, or one violation of the same if the violation posed serious risks to public safety, or one violation relating to a false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of fact in the performer’s permit application. In any such case, the permit holder shall have the right to appeal from a decision of the City to revoke or suspend any permit in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of this Code. A performer’s permit may be suspended for up to four months. If the performance permit of any performer is suspended, no new permit shall be issued during the period of suspension.

Notwithstanding the above, if a performer’s permit is suspended as a result of a false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of fact in the performer’s permit application, the permit shall not be reinstated until the false, misleading or fraudulent statement is corrected by the performer. Any revocation of a performer’s permit shall be for six months unless the performer previously had a performance permit revoked and the new violations of this Chapter or permit conditions relate to public safety, in which case, the permit shall be revoked for twelve months. No new permit shall be issued during a revocation period. The City may establish administrative regulations to assist in the implementation of this Section.
(f) No application for a performance permit or the renewal thereof shall be accepted unless the application is accompanied by a payment of a nonrefundable annual fee in an amount to be set by resolution adopted by the City Council. (g) The performance permit shall include a photograph of the performer, shall not be assignable or transferable, and shall contain the permit number of the applicant

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 14 and the year in which the permit expires. Each performer in a group shall obtain his or her own separate performance permit.
(h) A replacement performance permit may be obtained upon payment of a nonrefundable fee in an amount to be set by resolution adopted by the City Council. (i) A performer shall clearly display his or her permit while performing, and shall allow inspection of the permit by any City police or fire official on request. (j) The City Council may by resolution adjust the noise limitations established in this Chapter during public holidays.
(k) When an applicant requests a performance permit application, the City shall also give the applicant a document which summarizes the rules and regulations concerning street performances in the City. This document may be, but is not required to be, a copy of this Chapter.

6.112.050 Special regulations for Third Street Promenade and Transit Mall.

In addition to the requirements of Sections 6.112.030 and 6.112.040, no performer shall perform in the Third Street Promenade or the Transit Mall outside of an enclosed building in violation of the following requirements:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (q) of Section 6.112.030, no performer shall perform except during the following time periods:
(1) Nine a.m. to eleven p.m. daily.
(2) Eleven p.m. on Friday and Saturday to one-thirty a.m. of the following day.
(b) No performer shall perform within sixty feet of a community event any special event authorized by the City unless the community special event encompasses

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 15 one or more City blocks in which case the performance shall be conducted according to any administrative regulations issued under this Chapter guidelines which shall be adopted by the City.
(c) No performer shall:
(1) Perform on the Third Street Promenade in any specific location or within one hundred twenty feet that same block of that location as measured in a north/south direction, for more than two hours in any six-hour period. The time required to set up and to remove any instruments, props, equipment, or other items shall be considered part of the performance for purposes of this subdivision and subdivision (2) of this subsection (c).
(2) Perform on the Third Street Promenade on an even hour at the same location that he or she was performing on the preceding hour, or within one hundred twenty feet that same block of that location as measured in a north/south direction.
(3) Perform on the Transit Mall in any specific location or within one hundred twenty feet that same block of that location as measured in an east/west direction, for more than two hours in any six-hour period. The time required to set up and to remove any instruments, props, equipment, or other items shall be considered part of the performance for purposes of this subdivision and subdivision (4) of this subsection (c).
(4) Perform on the Transit Mall on an even hour at the same location that he or she was performing on the preceding hour, or within one hundred twenty feet that same block of that location as measured in an east/west direction.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 16 (5) Perform on the Buffer Zone in any specific location or within that same block, for more than two hours in any six hour period. The time required to set up and to remove any instruments, props, equipment, or other items shall be considered part of the performance for purposes of this subdivision and subdivision (6) of this subsection (c).
(6) Perform in the Buffer Zone on an even hour at the same location that he or she was performing on the preceding hour, or within that same block. (75) Perform within ten feet of a vendor operating pursuant to or under the authority of an approved license agreement or within forty feet of any other vendor or performance.
(86) Perform on the Transit Mall or in the Buffer Zone at a distance greater than five feet from the outer wall of any building or any permanent extension of the building such as a planter box.
(97) Perform on the Santa Monica Boulevard segment of the Transit Mall within twenty feet of the Third Street Promenade.

6.112.060 Special regulations for the Pier.

In addition to the requirements of Sections 6.112.030 and 6.112.040, no performer shall perform on the Pier outside of an enclosed building in violation of the following requirements:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Section and subsection (q) of Section 6.112.030, no performer shall perform except during the following time periods:
(1) Eight a.m. Monday through Thursday to one a.m. of the following day.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 17 (2) Eight a.m. on Friday to one a.m. the following Saturday. (3) Nine a.m. on Saturday and Sunday to one a.m. of the following day. (b) No performer shall perform within sixty feet of a community event any special event authorized by the City.
(c) No performer shall:
(1) Perform after one p.m. at the same location that he or she was performing prior to one p.m. or within one hundred fifty feet of that location. (2) Perform after four p.m. at the same location that he or she was performing prior to four p.m. or within one hundred fifty feet of that location. (3) Perform after seven p.m. at the same location that he or she was performing prior to seven p.m. or within one hundred fifty feet of that location. (4) Perform on the Pier in any specific location or within one hundred fifty feet of that location for more than three hours in any six-hour period. The time required to set up and to remove any instruments, props, equipment, or other items shall be considered part of the performance for purposes of this subdivision. (5) Perform within fifty feet of any other performance or any vendor when performing in the General Performance Area.
(6) Perform within thirty-five feet of any other performance or any vendor when performing in the Center Performance Area or the Breezeway Performance Area.
(7) Perform at a distance greater than ten feet from the north railing of the Pier when performing in the Center Performance Area.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 18 (8) Perform at a distance greater than ten feet from the north or south railings of the Pier when performing in the Breezeway Performance Area. (9) Perform at a distance greater than seven and one-half feet in either an east or west lateral direction from one of the stars that the City has painted on the Pier surface to effectuate the spacing requirements of this Section and to ensure that the maximum number of performance locations are provided consistent with spacing requirements. A lottery or voucher system may be implemented to allocate performance locations and ensure that all performers participating therein have a fair and equal opportunity to perform or obtain preferred performance locations. At the times that a lottery or voucher system is implemented, the distance requirement of subsection (c)(1) through (4) of this Section shall not apply. Administrative regulations issued under this Chapter may be established by the City to specify additional requirements, including the conduct and timing of the lottery or voucher system, the maximum time period and location in advance of the lottery or voucher distribution that the performers can line up, and the duration of the permit, consistent with the provisions of this subsection (c)(9) of this Section and any other relevant provisions of the Municipal Code. (10) Fail or refuse to comply with the City’s administrative regulations. (1011) Disrupt or impede the City’s operation of the lottery. (d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, no performer shall perform in the General Performance Area, which is adjacent to the Carousel Building, except during the following time periods:
(1) Eight a.m. to ten p.m. Monday through Thursday.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 19 (2) Eight a.m. to twelve a.m. (midnight) on Friday.
(3) Nine a.m. to twelve a.m. (midnight) on Saturday.
(4) Nine a.m. to ten p.m. on Sunday.

6.112.065 Administrative Regulations
(a) The City Manager or designee may adopt administrative regulations to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the suspension or revocation of a performance permit, the lottery or voucher system for the Pier, and any required distance between a performer and a community event on the Third Street Promenade that encompasses one or more City blocks.
(b) No person shall fail to comply with the City’s administrative regulations issued pursuant to this Chapter.

6.112.070 Penalties.

The following penalties shall be established for violations of this Chapter:
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, any person violating this Chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, but not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars per violation.
(b) Any person violating Sections 6.112.030(c), 6.112.030(f), 6.112.030(g),

6.112.030(l), 6.112.030(q), 6.112.050(a), 6.112.050(c)(5), 6.112.060(a), 6.112.060(c)(5), or 6.112.060(d), or any successor legislation thereto, shall be guilty of an infraction which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars, or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars per violation, or

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 20 by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(c) Any person performing without a performance permit as required by Section

6.112.030(b) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars per violation, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (d) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to administrative fines and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.09 and Chapter

1.10 of this Code.
(e) Nonexclusive Remedies and Penalties. The remedies provided in this Chapter are not exclusive, and nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies, penalties or procedures provided by law.

6.112.080 Exemptions.

This Chapter shall not apply to:
(a) Activities approved pursuant to Chapter 6.36 and Sections 3.36.180,

6.36.040 to 6.36.070, and 6.44.060 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. (b) Any approved participant in any City approved farmer’s market. (c) Any person who has obtained a community event permit pursuant to Chapter 4.68 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code approved participant in any special event authorized by the City.
(d) Any approved participant in any cultural arts and crafts show pursuant to Section 6.40.060 of this Code.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 21 SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: ORD-ord-Street Performers 6.112 (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Geller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Matt Geller; Janet Geller
Subject: Remarks for addition to the August 23rd agenda items relating to performance buffer zones

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council,
My husband and I live on Ocean Avenue between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue in Santa Monica. We enjoy the permitted performers on the promenade.

We are in favor of the amendment to the ordinance particularly the inclusion of the requirements for performers in the buffer zones and the enforcement of those requirements by the appropriate authorities.

In the past we have been unable to peacefully enjoy our home due to a constantly returning non‐permitted performer on the sidewalk at the southwest corner of Arizona Avenue and 3rd Street in an area of the proposed new buffer zone.

His loud music and singing occurs repeatedly up to 4 hours at a time on many nights. We are concerned without the amendment that there will be a continuation and potential increase of dangerous and disruptive non‐permitted performers.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Janet and Matt Geller
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10.E
08/23/22
1 of 1 Item 10.E
08/23/22

10.E.b
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Written Comment (5307 : Street Performer First Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.F
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance to Amend SMMC Sections

3.12.010 and 3.12.600 to allow non-electric pedicabs on Beach Bike-Path and recodify SMMC Section 3.12.380 prohibiting vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on July 26, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to (1) amend SMMC Section 3.12.010, Traffic Regulations, to define “Beach Bike-Path” and “Beach Promenade”; (2) amend Chapter 3.12.600 to permit pedicab operations on the Beach Bike-Path; and (3) recodify Section 3.12.380 prohibiting vehicle driving and parking on sidewalks and parkways. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council

10.F
Packet Pg. 1199
2 of 2
Attachments:

A. Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs

10.F
Packet Pg. 1200
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.12

TO ALLOW NON-ELECTRIC PEDICABS ON THE SANTA MONICA BEACH BIKE

PATH AND RECODIFY THE PROHIBITION OF DRIVING AND PARKING VEHICLES

ON SIDEWALKS AND PARKWAYS
WHEREAS, pedicabs serve as a transportation option for short trips and as a tourist attraction, and state law, California Vehicle Code Section 21100(n), grants municipalities authority to regulate pedicab operations; and WHEREAS, the City created regulations in 2013 prohibiting pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path over concerns about congestion on the Beach Bike-Path; and WHEREAS, since that time, the Beach Bike-Path has been widened; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2022 regular meeting, Council directed staff to amend existing pedicab regulations to allow a limited number of non-electric pedicabs to operate on the Beach Bike-Path; and
WHEREAS, prohibiting electric pedicabs on the Beach Bike-Path is intended to improve safety for all users by reducing their operating speeds; and WHEREAS, Pedicabs are larger, heavier and have more mass than electric bicycles; and
WHEREAS, Reducing the speed of pedicabs reduces the force of the pedicab when collisions occur; and
WHEREAS, Reducing the speed of pedicabs decreases the distance needed to stop a pedicab; and

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) WHEREAS, allowing pedicabs to operate on the Beach Bike Path will increase opportunities for zero emissions transportation options along the beach for residents and tourists alike; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to correct an inadvertent deletion of code language by recodifying the prohibition of vehicle driving and parking on public sidewalks and parkways.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3.12.010 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.12.010 Definitions
(a) Unless expressly stated otherwise, the words and phrases used in this Chapter shall have the meanings set forth in the California Vehicle Code. (b) “Beach Bike-Path” shall encompass the established Marvin Braude Bike Trail area spanning from the City’s southern boundary adjacent to Venice to the City’s northern boundary adjacent to Pacific Palisades.
(c) “Beach Promenade” shall encompass pedestrian-only segments along Ocean Front Walk and the path adjacent to the Beach Bike-Path extending from the City’s Southern boundary adjacent to Venice, to the City’s northern boundary adjacent to Pacific Palisades.

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) (d) “Business district” shall mean that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto upon one side of which highway for a distance of three hundred feet, where fifty percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or upon both sides of which highway collectively for a distance of one hundred fifty feet, where fifty percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied.
(e) “Driveway apron” shall mean that portion of a regularly established driveway lying between a property line and any curb, the purpose of which is to provide vehicular access from the street across the curb, parkway and sidewalk to the property fronting thereon or abutting thereto.
(f) “Loading zone” shall mean that space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of vehicles actively engaged in loading or unloading of materials, freight or passengers.
(g) “Parkway” shall mean that portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk.

SECTION 2. Section 3.12.600 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.12.600 Bicycles, electric bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electrically motorized boards, low-speed vehicles, motorized scooters, pedicabs, roller skates, skateboards, and similar devices.

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) (a) Beach Promenade. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, lowspeed vehicle, motorized scooter, pedicab or other vehicle upon the Beach Promenade. (b) Beach Bike-Path. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a motorized bicycle or a class 3 (as defined in the California Vehicle Code) electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle upon the Beach Bike-Path. Class 1 and class 2 (as defined in the California Vehicle Code) electric bicycles are permitted on the Beach Bike-Path, however, no pedicab with a motor, including class 1 and class two electric bicycle pedicabs, shall be permitted on the Beach Bike-Path. Bicycle riding shall be permitted along the Beach Bike-Path, within the City limits and in those areas where the Beach Promenade constitutes a portion of the bikeway and are otherwise permitted by sign. All persons riding bicycles on the Beach Bike-Path shall comply with all lawful signs and directional markings, including, but not limited to, painted, directional arrows, bike-path route boundaries, and signs designating permissible travel lanes. (c) Public Sidewalks. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, lowspeed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle upon any public sidewalk. (d) Public Parking Structure. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, lowspeed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle in any public parking structure.

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1204 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) (e) Roller Skates, Skateboards, and Similar Devices. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt regulations prohibiting or limiting the use of roller skates, skateboards and similar devices with wheels in public street rights-of-way and public areas, where necessary for public safety.
(f) Third Street Promenade and Municipal Pier. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt regulations prohibiting or limiting the use of roller skates, skateboards and similar devices with wheels; bicycles; electric bicycles; electric personal assistive mobility devices; electrically motorized boards; low-speed vehicles; motorized scooters; and/or other vehicles on the Third Street Promenade and/or the Municipal Pier, where necessary for public safety.
(g) Reckless Riding or Operating. It shall be unlawful to ride or operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Reckless and unlawful operating includes carrying any other person upon the bar, handle bars, floorboard or other area of a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, lowspeed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle not designed for passenger riding or designed for a single person, and reckless and unlawful riding includes riding in any such a manner. Reckless and unlawful operating also includes clinging to or attaching oneself or one’s motorized or non-motorized wheeled device to any moving vehicle or motorized or non-motorized wheeled device.

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1205 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) (h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, or any other Section of this Code, public safety personnel may operate a bicycle, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electrically motorized board, low-speed vehicle, motorized scooter, or other vehicle at any place in the City in the performance of their duties. (i) This Section shall not apply to any person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

SECTION 3. Section 6.50.035 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is added as follows:

6.50.035 Beach Bike-Path Operation Limit and Selection Process The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to limit the number of pedicab operators allowed to operate on the Beach Bike-Path, and limit the number of pedicabs each permitted pedicab operator may operate at any time on the Beach Bike-Path. The process of selection shall be included in the rules and regulations created under Section

6.50.030.

SECTION 4. Section 3.12.380 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby recodified and amended as follows:

3.12.380 Driving on sidewalk or Beach Promenade
Except as hereinafter provided in this Section no operator of a motor vehicle shall drive on, over, along, or upon, or park upon, any sidewalk, parkway, or curb, or on, along,

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1206 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) over, or onto, any sidewalk, parkway, or curb other than on or over a regularly established driveway or roadway. The Chief of Police is authorized and empowered to grant permission under such regulations as he shall deem necessary to protect the public safety and the interests of the City to: (a) any person to deliver merchandise along the Beach Promenade; (b) any person to operate tram cars on the Beach Promenade providing such person is not operating contrary to any state law relative to public carriers for hire.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, no operator of a motor vehicle shall park upon any driveway apron.

SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Second Reading ORD - Pedicabs (5322 : Second Reading - Pedicabs) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.G
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance to Add Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.080 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of an emergency ordinance adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.080 to provide temporary eviction protection for residential tenants in rent-controlled units who, effective September 1, 2022, face an increase in the maximum allowable rent (MARs) up to six (6) percent; are not able to pay the increased rent due to financial hardship; and are at risk of being evicted for nonpayment of rent.

Council may want to consider adopting this Ordinance first as an emergency ordinance under Sections 615 and 619 of the City Charter, and separately adopting this identical Ordinance as a regular ordinance, subject to the usual procedure of two readings.

Summary
For rent controlled units, the City Charter currently allows annual upwards adjustments to rent ceilings according to a formula based on a percentage of the change in the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed 6% or fall below zero. The annual general adjustment (AGA) is announced by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (Board) in June of each year and is based on the change in CPI from March to February. In June 2022, faced with unprecedented inflation due to a global pandemic and other extraneous forces, the 6% cap was reached for the first time.

Recognizing that tenants hardest hit during the COVID-19 pandemic with unemployment and other hardships are now struggling to make ends meet and remain ill-equipped to afford a 6% rent increase, the Board recommended, and the Council

10.G
Packet Pg. 1209
2 of 6
adopted, several ballot measures including one tailored to blunt the impact of the 2022 AGA.

This Ordinance (Attachment A) would enable the meaningful implementation of the measures placed on the November 8, 2022, ballot which would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter (Rent Control Charter Amendment or RCCA) to lower the current 6% cap on annual rent ceiling adjustments to 3%, and adjust the 2022 AGA of 6% effective September 1, 2022, down to 0.8% for the period of February 1 through August 31, 2023, so that the overall AGA for the 12-month period of September 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023, averages 3%.

The Ordinance may help to prevent evictions and allow protected tenants to stay housed when unable to pay the increased rents until the voter-approved rent maximum rent decrease down to 0.8% becomes effective and provides time for the 2022 MAR to adjust so that the 2022 AGA averages 3%, consistent with the voters’ will. The Ordinance is also necessary to preserve housing stability and help prevent rentburdened tenants from becoming displaced and unhoused.

This report is made in context of the passage of the proposed measures on the November 8, 2022, ballot amending the City Charter as discussed and as set forth in the Resolution for Proposed Ballot Measures (Attachment B).

Discussion
Background: Santa Monica Tenants are Struggling to Pay Increasing Rents and Risk Being Displaced for Nonpayment of Rent
Many Santa Monica tenants are at risk, as they face unprecedented rent increases and heightened threat of eviction due to financial hardship. As discussed in greater detail in the Staff Report regarding the Adoption of Resolution for Proposed Ballot Measures on the November 8, 2022, Election Amending Article XVIII of the City Charter (Attachment C), many tenants in Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Monica are grappling with the devastatingly inflationary impacts caused by global supply chain disruptions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

As recently reported in Los Angeles Times, based on rent increases across the country between 2021 and 2022, Santa Monica is one of the most expensive places for renters

10.G
Packet Pg. 1210
3 of 6
in the United States; according to a report by the listing portal Rent, Santa Monica is now ranked the fifth most expensive city for renters in the United States. Los Angeles Times, California rents are spiking – and in places you might not expect. ‘I was in shock’ (August 15, 2022). According to the report “[r]ent in Santa Monica (No. 5), costs an average of $4,357, an increase of 15.07 percent over last year.” Rent., Alicia Underlee Nelson, Cities With the Highest Rent in the U.S. (July 22, 2022).

Significantly,
• 14,460 renter households in the City are cost burdened (meaning they pay over 30% of their income for rent), representing 31.6% of renter households • There are 10,225 households in Santa Monica experiencing severe housing cost burden (meaning they pay over 30% of their income for rent), of which 2,930 of these households are families
See Attachment C.

Facing a 6% increase in rent starting September 2022, Santa Monica tenants are struggling and at risk. The Board recommended, and the Council on August 3, 2022, approved, ballot measures to blunt the impact of the extraordinary rent increases facing tenants in controlled units effective September 1, 2022. The ballot measures respond to the need for immediate action to address the compounding negative impacts of the scheduled rent increases and the looming threat of evictions faced by low-income and rent-burdened tenant households in the City. See Attachment B.

How the Ordinance Works
The Ordinance narrowly targets eviction protection for nonpayment of rent, as it only applies to tenants in controlled rental units facing a rent increase of more than 3% above the MAR in place prior to September 1, 2022; who are unable to pay rent for the “protected period” of September 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023; and where nonpayment of rent is due to financial distress. The protected tenants are required to provide notice and documentation to their landlord within 30 days after the rent is due. A tenant’s self-certification of inability to pay due to financial distress is sufficient to meet the notice and documentation requirement.

10.G
Packet Pg. 1211
4 of 6
Once the tenant provides notice, a landlord may not evict for nonpayment of rent for that protected period, until September 1, 2023. If the tenant pays the deferred rent accrued during the protected period by September 1, 2023, the tenant is permanently protected from eviction for nonpayment for rent accrued during the protected period. If the tenant is not able to pay the unpaid (deferred) rent accrued during the protected period by September 1, 2023, the landlord may then proceed with eviction. The protection provided will constitute an affirmative defense for any tenant in an unlawful detainer action brought by the landlord.

This Ordinance would then allow the protected tenant up to 12 months to pay the increased rent (which accrued during the five-month protected period, September 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023), and not risk eviction until September 1, 2023.

Significantly, the protection does not excuse or take away a landlord’s ability to evict, it merely extends the period in which the tenant can pay the increased unpaid rent that accrued during the protected period.

The Ordinance is Necessary as an Emergency Measure To Preserve the Health and Safety, and Housing Stability for the City’s Vulnerable Tenant Households Critically the emergency Ordinance would allow tenants who face the initial increase up to 6% from September 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, eviction protection while the annual MAR adjusts, starting on February 1, 2023, when the adjustment cap will be reduced to 0.8% of the MAR in effect as of August 31, 2022, and remain at 0.8% until August 31, 2023. The tenant household can stay housed in place until the ballot measures kick in and effectuate the rent reduction relief the voters directed. The Ordinance is necessary to preserve the health and safety, and housing stability for the City’s most vulnerable, rent-burdened households, and fills the gap between the September 2022 - 6% rent increase, and the February 1, 2023 - 0.8 % ballot measure rent decrease relief.

Current Eviction Protection
Los Angeles County COVID-19 tenant eviction protections remain in place for qualifying low-income households through December 31, 2022. The County of Los Angeles extended its eviction moratorium on January 25, 2022. This moratorium applies to

10.G
Packet Pg. 1212
5 of 6
tenants residing in incorporated cities within the County of Los Angeles, including the City of Santa Monica. Effective June 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, a residential tenant whose household income is at 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI) or below and who is unable to pay rent incurred from June 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, is protected from eviction under the County Moratorium, so long as the reason for the nonpayment was financial impacts related to COVID-19, and the residential tenant has provided notice to the landlord to this effect and self-certified their income level and financial hardship within specified time frames (see
https://dcba.lacounty.gov/noevictions/ for more information on the County’s eviction moratorium as well as self-certification forms).

The protection provided by this Ordinance differs from that offered by the County Moratorium, as follows: this Ordinance would apply only to the City’s tenants in rentcontrolled units who have their rents increased more than 3%; the protection covers unpaid rents accrued for the five-month period of September 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023; the financial distress that renders the tenant unable to pay rent need not be COVID-19 related; and tenant has until September 1, 2023 to pay the unpaid accrued rent.

In addition to adopting this Ordinance as an emergency ordinance, Council may concurrently adopt the first reading of this Ordinance as a regular ordinance, with second reading to occur at the next regularly scheduled council meeting. The emergency Ordinance would take effect immediately. The regular Ordinance would take effect 30 days from second reading.

Potential Local Funding to Provide Financial Assistance for Low Income Tenants In addition to the ballot measures in the resolution (Attachment B), the City is actively exploring funding avenues to provide rental and other financial assistance for lowincome tenants.

Fiscal Impact.

None.

10.G
Packet Pg. 1213
6 of 6
Prepared By: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium
B. B-August 3 Resolution
C. C-August 3 Staff Report
D. Written Comment

10.G
Packet Pg. 1214
1 City Council Meeting August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 4.27.080 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE

TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE BY TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING CERTAIN EVICTIONS DUE TO TENANTS’ FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WHEREAS, the global pandemic due to COVID-19 has caused unprecedented hardships, disruptions, and long-term impacts that continue to negatively affect Santa Monica residents; and
WHEREAS, while there has been some relief in the form of an eviction moratorium, rental assistance, and other efforts to prevent displacement, those programs are winding down while the pandemic’s impacts continue to be felt; and WHEREAS, inflation rates continue to spike, and rising costs are hampering residents’ ability to recover from the loss of income and unexpected expenses that many experienced during the pandemic’s first two years; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 cases are increasing even as mitigation measures, such as masking and social distancing, are no longer required; and WHEREAS, 14,460 renter households in the City are cost burdened, representing

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 2 WHEREAS, on or about November 6, 2012, Section 1805 of the City Charter was amended to allow for an Annual General Adjustment to the maximum rent ceiling using a formula based upon the CPI, with a maximum increase of 6%; and WHEREAS, applying that formula and maximum increase, the Rent Control Board has approved an Annual General Adjustment of 6% to take effect starting September 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code sections 1954.50 to 1954.535), allows owners to charge fair market rents upon vacancy of certain rental housing units in accordance with Civil Code section 1954.52 (also known as “vacancy decontrol”); and
WHEREAS, due to vacancy decontrol allowed by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, several other jurisdictions in the state have lowered their annual general adjustment caps to address the imbalance caused by allowing a higher cap on the annual general adjustment in addition to vacancy decontrol; and WHEREAS, reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases; and
WHEREAS, other rent stabilization jurisdictions have been able to adjust to these conditions by freezing, lowering, or implementing caps on rent increases for controlled units, including Oakland (3% cap) and City of West Hollywood (freeze), among others; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the City Council approved a resolution to submit to the voters a measure to amend Article XVIII of the City Charter providing that commencing

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 3 on February 1, 2023, the rent control general adjustment during the period from February 1, 2023, through August 31, 2023, shall be 0.8% of the maximum allowable rent in effect as of August 31, 2022, with a maximum dollar amount limit of nineteen dollars, with the effect that the average annual general adjustment for the period from September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023, shall be no more than 3%, and providing thereafter the maximum permitted annual increases shall be at the reduced 3% cap; and WHEREAS, if that measure is approved by voters in the November 8, 2022, election, it will not go into effect until January 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, any tenant who cannot pay the 6% rent increase and who is evicted for nonpayment will not be protected by the reduction in the maximum permissible rent increase to be considered by the voters in the November 2022 election and, if passed, to go into effect on February 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica is one of the most expensive rental markets in the country and one of the most challenging in which to find affordable apartment homes and tenants who would be evicted for inability to pay the 6% rent increase would struggle to or be unable find alternative housing in Santa Monica or in the Los Angeles area, causing major disruption in their lives and their children’s education and in the worst cases leading to long-term housing insecurity and homelessness; and
WHEREAS, vacancy decontrol means that eviction of rent controlled tenants who cannot pay the 6% increase between September 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023, would result in controlled units being rented out at substantially higher rents, thereby reducing the overall stock of affordable housing during a time of acute need; and

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 4 WHEREAS, this ordinance is presented for adoption as an emergency ordinance, to be introduced, adopted, and immediately effective upon its passage by at least five affirmative votes, pursuant to City Charter Section 615, because of the imminent extraordinary rent control rent increase of 6% to take effect on September 1, 2022, amidst ongoing public health, housing affordability, homelessness, and cost of living crises, giving rise to long-term and irreversible consequences for displaced tenants and the City, as set forth above; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that: the addition to the Santa Monica Municipal Code implemented by this emergency ordinance is immediately necessary as an emergency measure in order to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting vulnerable tenants subject to an extraordinary rent increase while preserving property owners’ rights, including to pursue eviction of covered tenants and collection of covered rent after September 1, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.060, is hereby added to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.27, TENANT PROTECTION, to read as follows:

4.27.60 Temporary eviction moratorium for rent controlled tenants subject to extraordinary rent increase.
(a) The following terms as used in this Section have the following meanings:
(1) “Protected Period” means September 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023.

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 5 (2) “Protected Period Rent” means rent that became due between September 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023.
(3) “Financial Distress” means lacking sufficient funds to pay the rent while foregoing or without foregoing adequate food, shelter, healthcare, childcare, necessary transportation, or other life necessities for oneself or one’s dependents.
(4) “Rent Controlled Residential Tenant” means a tenant in a Controlled Rental Unit as that term is defined in section 1801(c) of the Charter of the City of Santa Monica.
(5) “Maximum Allowable Rent” means the maximum permissible rent as determined by the Rent Control Board pursuant to section 1804 of the Charter of the City of Santa Monica.
(b) From September 1, 2022, until September 1, 2023, no landlord who has increased a rent controlled residential tenant’s rent by more than three percent above the maximum allowable rent in place prior to September 1, 2022, shall evict a rent controlled residential tenant whose rent was so increased for nonpayment of protected period rent if nonpayment was due to the tenant’s financial distress. As set forth in section (e) below, a tenant who has repaid unpaid rent prior to September 1, 2023, is permanently protected from eviction.
(c) If a rent controlled residential tenant whose rent was increased as described in section (b) is unable to pay protected period rent due to financial distress, the tenant shall provide notice and documentation to the landlord within 30 days after rent is due. A

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 6 tenant’s self-certification of inability to pay due to financial distress is sufficient to meet this notice and documentation requirement.
(d) The protections provided in this section shall constitute an affirmative defense for a tenant in any unlawful detainer action brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, as amended, and any other civil action seeking repayment of rental debt. To qualify for the affirmative defense, a tenant must provide notice and documentation of inability to pay due to financial distress. A tenant may provide notice and documentation, including self-certification, at any time prior to judgment against the tenant.

A tenant who does not provide notice and documentation within 30 days after rent is due but does provide notice and documentation prior to judgment against them in an unlawful detainer matter, is eligible for the affirmative defense. Notice and documentation shall create a rebuttable presumption that nonpayment was due to the tenant’s financial distress.
(e) A rent controlled residential tenant protected from eviction by this section shall have until September 1, 2023, to repay protected period rent that was not paid due to financial distress. A tenant may repay covered protected period rent in any number of payments or in a lump sum at any time before September 1, 2023. A tenant who so repays covered protected period rent shall be permanently protected from eviction for nonpayment of that rent.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this ordinance.

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 7 SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. Pursuant to Sections 615 and 619 of the City Charter, for the reasons stated in the recitals above, the City Council declares this ordinance to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, and safety, with the result that this ordinance shall be introduced and adopted at the same meeting, shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.G.a
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: EORD-ord-Eviction Moratorium (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 1 City Council Meeting: August 3, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA

SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE TO AMEND ARTICLE XVIII OF THE

CITY CHARTER TO REVISE REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS TO EVICT TENANTS

FOR OWNER-OCCUPANCY, REVISE ELECTION PROCEDURES, AND LOWER THE

CAP ON THE ANNUAL GENERAL ADJUSTMENT AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2022, AND AUTHORIZING

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE

MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE.

WHEREAS, the City’s Rental Control Law (Article XVIII of the City Charter, also referenced as “RCCA”) prohibits evictions of tenants except as enumerated in the law; and
WHEREAS, owners or qualified relatives who wish to move into their units and reside there permanently may evict current tenants to do so, but only if they meet the requirements set forth in the RCCA; and
WHEREAS, one of those requirements is the owner or relative “intend in good faith to move into the unit within thirty (30) days after the tenant vacates and to occupy the unit as a primary residence for at least one year”; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (the “Board”) has heard input from the public on the feasibility of requiring owners or their qualified relatives to intend to occupy the unit for a longer period, instead of one year, upon evicting an existing tenant; and

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of placing both a requirement to occupy the unit within a certain time frame and a good faith intent to live there for a certain period is to ensure the eviction is not used as a pretext for the owner to rent the unit to a new tenant paying market rates; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing recitals, the Board has recommended the City Charter be amended to modify Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(8)(iv) and (v), to require an owner intend to occupy a unit for at least three years, and occupy the unit within sixty days of vacancy; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the Board’s recommendation, the City Council desires the City Charter be amended to require an owner intend to occupy a unit for at least two years, unless extenuating circumstances exist; and require the owner to occupy the unit within sixty days of vacancy; and
WHEREAS, on or about November 6, 2012, Section 1805 of the City Charter was amended to allow for an Annual General Adjustment to the maximum rent ceiling, based upon the CPI, with a maximum increase of 6%; and
WHEREAS, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code sections 1954.50 to 1954.535), allows owners to charge fair market rents upon vacancy of certain rental housing units in accordance with Civil Code section 1954.52 (also known as “vacancy decontrol”); and
WHEREAS, due to vacancy decontrol allowed by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, several other jurisdictions in the state have lowered their annual general adjustment caps to address the imbalance caused by allowing a higher cap on the annual general adjustment in addition to vacancy decontrol; and WHEREAS, the global pandemic due to COVID-19 has caused unprecedented

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 3 hardships, disruptions, and long-term impacts that continue to negatively affect Santa Monica’s residents; and
WHEREAS, reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases; and
WHEREAS, while there has been some relief in the form of an eviction moratorium, rental assistance, and other efforts to prevent displacement, those programs are winding down while the pandemic’s impacts continue to be felt; and WHEREAS, inflation rates continue to spike and rising costs are hampering residents’ ability to recover from the loss of income and unexpected expenses that many experienced during the pandemic’s first two years; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 cases are increasing even as mitigation measures, such as masking and social distancing, are no longer required; and WHEREAS, 14,460 renter households in the City are cost burdened, representing

31.6% of renter households, as further discussed in the City’s most recent draft of the Housing Element relating to fair housing; and
WHEREAS, there are 10,225 households in Santa Monica experiencing severe housing cost burden, of which 2,930 of these households are families; and WHEREAS, approximately 11.7% of Black and 8.6% of Hispanic/Latino family households in the City were cost burdened even before the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, other rent stabilization jurisdictions have been able to adjust to these conditions by freezing, lowering, or implementing caps on rent increases for controlled units, including Oakland (3% cap) and City of West Hollywood (freeze), among others;

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1224 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 4 and
WHEREAS, following the economic hardships of COVID and the unanticipated highest inflation rates in recent history, to strike a balance between tenant relief and landlords obtaining a fair rate of return, Section 1805(a) could be amended as follows:
(a) Annual General Adjustment. No later than June 30 each year, the Board shall announce the percentage by which rent ceilings for eligible units will be generally adjusted effective September 1 of that year. (1) The adjustment shall be equal to seventy-five (75) percent of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange County region, or any successor designation of that index that may later be adopted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) as reported and published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the twelve (12) month period ending as of March of the current year. (2) In determining the allowable percentage increase, numbers of .04 and below shall be rounded down to the nearest tenth decimal place and numbers of .05 and above shall be rounded up to the nearest tenth decimal place.
(3) Subparagraph 1 of this subsection notwithstanding, in no event shall the general adjustment be less than zero percent or greater than six (6) three (3) percent; and
(4) Commencing on March 1, 2023, the general adjustment during the period from March 1, 2023, through August 31, 2023, shall be zero percent (0%) of the maximum allowable rent (MAR) in effect

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 5 as of August 31, 2022, with a maximum dollar amount limit of zero dollars ($0) (“Adjusted GA”). Absent an individual adjustment pursuant to subparagraphs (c) through (h) of this Section, the MAR during this six month transition period shall be the MAR in effect as of August 31, 2022, plus the Adjusted GA. Notwithstanding the Board’s June 2022 announcement of the 2022 general adjustment, the MAR for any period after August 31, 2023, shall be calculated pursuant to this Section 1805 as if the General Adjustment for the entire period from September 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023, had been three (3) percent, with a maximum dollar amount limit of seventy dollars ($70).
(5) If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section is for any reason held to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Section or any portion thereof.

WHEREAS, an owner in Santa Monica would still be able to petition for a rent increase if rents were adjusted to a 3% increase from rents in effect as of August 31, 2022, which would enable the owner to obtain a fair and reasonable return. Charter Section 1805(c) provides a due process safety net for landlords who believe they are not making a fair return, despite other Sections of the Charter that limit rent increases:
1805(c). Petitions. Upon receipt of a petition by a landlord and/or a tenant, the maximum rent of individual controlled rental units may be adjusted upward or downward in accordance with the procedures set forth elsewhere in this Section. The petition shall be on the form

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 6 provided by the Board and shall include a declaration by the landlord that the unit meets all requirements of Section 1805(h).

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the Board or hearing examiner may refuse to hold a hearing and/or grant a rent adjustment if an individual hearing has been held and decision made with regard to maximum rent within the previous six (6) months. and
WHEREAS, currently, the RCCA requires that an election be held even if there are only as many candidates as open Board positions; and
WHEREAS, the Rent Control Board has proposed an amendment to the RCCA that an election is not necessary when the number of qualified candidates does not exceed the open positions. To accomplish this, Section 1803(d) could be amended as follows:

Section 1803(d) ELECTION OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioners shall be elected at general municipal elections in the same manner as set forth in Article XIV of the Santa Monica Charter, except that the first Commissioners shall be elected at a special municipal election held within ninety (90) days of the adoption of this Article. The elected Commissioners shall take office on the first Tuesday following their election. If, upon the City Clerk’s determination of the qualified candidates, the number of andidates does not exceed the number of vacant positions, no election will be held and the qualified candidates shall be seated upon swearing in by the City Clerk.

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and approved the Board’s recommendation because these amendments are in the public interest as they would

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1227 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 7 strengthen tenant protections from unnecessary displacements and would streamline elections to improve governmental functions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10403, the City Council has previously requested the County of Los Angeles consent and agree to the consolidation of all aspects of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing members of the Santa Monica City Council, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and the Santa Monica College Community College District.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. At the General Municipal Election called for November 8, 2022, the following measure shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Santa Monica:

PROPOSITION " ": Shall the City Charter be
amended to require owner occupancy of a rentcontrolled unit for two years before tenant eviction, absent extenuating circumstances; require owner
occupancy within 60 days of vacancy; reduce the
maximum Annual General Adjustment from 6% to
0% from March 1, 2023, through August 31, 2023,
and a 3% maximum Annual General Adjustment
thereafter; and require an election only if the number
of qualified candidates exceeds the number of open
Board positions?
Yes ________
No ________
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and with the county election department of the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 3. That the City of Santa Monica recognizes additional costs may be incurred by the County by reason of the addition of this measure to the ballot and agrees

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1228 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 8 to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall transmit to the City Attorney, in accordance with applicable law, a copy of the proposed measure. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, which shall not exceed 500 words in length. The impartial analysis for each measure shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. In accordance with applicable law, not less than 10 calendar days before the City Clerk submits the official election materials for printing, the City Clerk shall make a copy of all applicable elections materials available for public examination in the City Clerk’s office.

SECTION 5. The City Council authorizes its members, as follows, to file written arguments for or against the measure described above and which is contained in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein:

FOR: ____________________________________________
AGAINST: ___________________________________________
All written arguments filed by any person in favor of or against the measure, including any rebuttal arguments, shall be accompanied by the names and signatures of the persons submitting the argument as required by applicable law, and any names, signatures, and arguments may be filed until the time and date fixed by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law, after which no change may be submitted to the City Clerk unless permitted by law.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause the text of the measure, which is contained in Exhibit 1, together with the City Attorney impartial analysis, and any arguments for or against the measure, as well as any rebuttals, to be mailed to all qualified voters with the sample ballots. In addition to other notices and publications required by

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1229 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 9 law, the City Clerk, not less than forty (40) days and not more than sixty (60) days before the General Municipal Election, shall cause the text of the measure to be published once in the official newspaper and in each edition thereof during the day of publication. The City Clerk is authorized to give such notices and to fix such times and dates as are required by law or which are appropriate to conduct properly the election.

SECTION 7. The provisions of Resolution Numbers 11425 and 11426 are referred to and incorporated into this resolution for more particulars concerning the conduct of General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, and in all respects the election shall be held and conducted as provided for by applicable law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to procure and furnish any official ballots, notices, printed materials and all supplies or equipment that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1230 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 10 Exhibit 1
Section 1806(a)(8)(iv) and (v) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows :
(iv) The landlord or enumerated relative must intend in good faith to move into the unit within thirty (30) sixty (60) days after the tenant vacates and to occupy the unit as a primary residence for at least one year two years, unless extenuating circumstances exist.
(v) If the landlord or relative specified on the notice terminating tenancy fails to occupy the unit within thirty (30) sixty (60) days after the tenant vacates or fails to occupy the unit as a primary residence for at least two years, unless extenuating circumstances exist, the landlord shall: A. Offer the unit to the tenant who vacated it. B. Pay to said tenant all reasonable expenses incurred in moving to and/or from the unit.

Section 1805(a) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended as follows:
(a) Annual General Adjustment. No later than June 30 each year, the Board shall announce the percentage by which rent ceilings for eligible units will be generally adjusted effective September 1 of that year.
(1) The adjustment shall be equal to seventy-five (75) percent of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange County region, or any successor designation of that index that may later be adopted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) as reported and published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the twelve (12) month period ending as of March of the current year.

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 11 (2) In determining the allowable percentage increase, numbers of .04 and below shall be rounded down to the nearest tenth decimal place and numbers of .05 and above shall be rounded up to the nearest tenth decimal place.
(3) Subparagraph 1 of this subsection notwithstanding, in no event shall the general adjustment be less than zero percent or greater than six (6) three (3) percent; and
(4) Commencing on March 1, 2023, the general adjustment during the period from March 1, 2023 through August 31, 2023, shall be zero percent (0%) of the maximum allowable rent (MAR) in effect as of August 31, 2022, with a maximum dollar amount limit of zero dollars ($0) (“Adjusted GA”).

Absent an individual adjustment, the MAR during this six month transition period shall be the MAR in effect as of August 31, 2022, plus the adjusted GA. Notwithstanding the Board’s June 2022 announcement of the 2022 general adjustment, the MAR for any period after August 31, 2023, shall be calculated pursuant to this Section 1805 as if the General Adjustment for the entire period from September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023, had been three (3) percent, with a maximum dollar amount limit of seventy dollars ($70).
(5) If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section is for any reason held to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Section or any portion thereof.

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1232 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 12 Section 1803(d) of Article XVIII of the City Charter shall be amended to read as follows:

Section 1803(d) ELECTION OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioners shall be elected at general municipal elections in the same manner as set forth in Article XIV of the Santa Monica Charter, except that the first Commissioners shall be elected at a special municipal election held within ninety (90) days of the adoption of this Article. The elected Commissioners shall take office on the first Tuesday following their election. If, upon the City Clerk’s determination of the qualified candidates, the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacant positions, no election will be held and the qualified candidates shall be seated upon swearing in by the City Clerk.

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 1233 Attachment: B-August 3 Resolution (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 3, 2022
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of Resolutions for Proposed Ballot Measures on the November 8, 2022 Election Amending Articles XVIII of the City Charter Recommended Actions

1. Per Rent Control Board direction, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to revise requirements for owners to evict tenants for owner-occupancy; revise election procedures; and reduce the Annual General Adjustment, while maintaining the landlord’s ability to petition for an individual rent adjustment; and

2. Per Council direction, adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to authorize the Rent Control Board to freeze or modify otherwiseallowed annual general adjustments to rent ceilings during a declared state of emergency by the President of the United States, the Governor, the County of Los Angeles or upon a declaration of a local emergency by the City Council or Director of Emergency Services, while maintaining the landlord’s ability to petition for an individual rent adjustment; and

3. Authorize City Councilmembers to file written arguments for or against and direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis for each measure.

Executive Summary
At its April 28, 2022 meeting, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (the “Board”) voted to recommend that the City Council place on the ballot for the November 8, 2022, general election amendments to the City Charter, as follows:
1) Add new Section 2304.5 to Article XXIII of the City Charter to require the registration of all Nonrentcontrolled Rental Units;

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1234 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 2 of 11
2) Modify Article XVIII, Section 1806(a)(8)(iv) and (v) of the City Charter to require that an owner intend to occupy a unit for at least three years instead of one year before evicting a tenant, and occupy the unit within sixty (60) days of vacancy;
3) Modify Article XVIII, Section 1803(e) of the City Charter to allow Rent Control Board Commissioners to be elected to a maximum of three full terms to align with City elected officials; and
4) Modify Article XVIII, Section 1803(d) of the City Charter to state that an election need not be held if the number of qualified candidates does not exceed the number of open Rent Control Board positions.

At its June 9, 2022 meeting, the Board voted to propose an additional charter amendment giving the Board discretion to modify or suspend the annual general adjustment during declared emergencies. The Board believes that these amendments are in the public interest because they would provide greater transparency about rental and occupancy rates for all rental units; would strengthen tenant protections from unnecessary displacements; would streamline elections to improve governmental functions; and would protect tenants during a declared state of emergency.

At its July 12, 2022, meeting (Attachment C), the City Council considered the Board recommendations and provided the following direction to City staff:
1) Instead of adding new Section 2304.5 to Article XXIII of the City Charter to require the registration of all Nonrentcontrolled Rental Units, prepare an ordinance at a later date for Council consideration, to require such registration given that Article XXIII already gives the City Council flexibility to implement its housing policies by ordinance, and more time is needed to receive community and staff input before adoption of such a program; 2) Revise the proposed ballot language to require an owner to intend to occupy a unit for two years, unless extenuating circumstances exist; 3) Retain existing Charter language regarding term limits of Rent Board Commissioners;

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 3 of 11
4) Add new ballot measure language that would lower the cap on the annual general adjustment from 6% to 3% and reduce the 2022 general adjustment from 6% to 3% effective January 1, 2023; and 5) Revise the proposed ballot language to allow the City Council to suspend or reduce rent adjustments during a federal, state, or local declared state of emergency.

At its July 26, 2022, meeting (Attachment D), Council discussed alternative proposals to the 6% to 3% proposal discussed in the July 12, 2022, staff report, but ultimately deferred making a decision for another week, giving the Rent Control Board time to review the alternative proposals.

The Rent Control Board met on July 28, 2022, and voted to adopt a net 3% reduction in the general adjustment, as further discussed in the Rent Control Board staff report (Attachment E).

Discussion
As further discussed, below, due to unprecedented inflationary impacts caused by global supply chain disruptions and COVID-19 hardships, many households face an ever-increasing threat of eviction due to the inability to pay rent. 2020 Fair Housing Assessment
In accordance with state Housing Element law, the City researched and drafted a fair housing assessment, which is included in the City’s latest draft Housing Element. The fair housing assessment indicates that 14,460 renter households in the City are cost burdened (meaning they pay over 30% of their income for rent), representing 31.6% of renter households. There are 10,225 households in Santa Monica experiencing severe housing cost burden (meaning they pay over 30% of their income for rent), of which 2,930 of these households are families.

Approximately 11.7% of Black and 8.6% of Hispanic/Latino family households in the City were cost burdened even before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rent Control Board 2021 Annual Report
As of April 5, 2022, the online dashboard at Housingiskey.com shows that 3,037 Santa

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 4 of 11
Monica tenants and landlords filed complete applications for the California COVID-19 Rent Relief Program by the March 31st deadline. Almost 2,000 households (1,878) have received assistance, averaging $15,220 per household. To date, more than 28.5 million dollars has been distributed to local tenants and landlords to cover unpaid rent and utilities. But many applications across the state remain unprocessed. Swift legislative action extended eviction protections for COVID impacted tenants, however, these protections ended on June 30th.

Legal Aid Foundation Data
The Legal Aid Foundation for Los Angeles (LAFLA) has been retained by the City to provide comprehensive eviction prevention services, including a Right to Counsel Program funded through the City Attorney’s Office. LAFLA has provided extensive written comments on the continuing effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, which constitutes further evidence of the need for immediate action to address the compounding negative impacts of the 6% rent increases authorized to go into effect on September 1, 2022, and the looming threat of evictions faced by LAFLA’s clients. These comments are in Attachment E.

Reducing the current cap on the Annual General Adjustment To mitigate the looming threat of evictions caused by the 6% increase in the maximum allowable rent (MARs), effective September 1, 2022, Council has focused intently on ways to modify the annual general adjustment authorized by the City Charter, as further discussed, below.

On or about November 6, 2012, Section 1805 of the City Charter was amended to allow for an Annual General Adjustment to the rent ceiling based upon the percentage increase in the CPI, with a maximum increase of 6%. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code sections 1954.50 to 1954.535), allows owners to charge fair market rents upon vacancy of controlled rental housing units in accordance with Civil Code section 1954.52 (also known as “vacancy decontrol”). Due to vacancy decontrol allowed by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and the unprecedented spike in inflation due to the global pandemic’s interruption of supply chains and fluctuations in demand, the current 6% cap creates an imbalance in the dual goals of maintaining

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 5 of 11
affordable rents while providing owners with a fair return.

The global pandemic due to COVID-19 has caused unprecedented hardships, disruptions, and long-term impacts that continue to negatively affect Santa Monica’s residents. Reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases. Moreover, an owner would still be able to petition for an individual adjustment if the reduced adjustments would prevent the owner from obtaining a fair and reasonable return.

While there has been some relief in the form of rental assistance, and other efforts to prevent displacement, those programs are winding down while the pandemic’s impacts continue to be felt. The County of Los Angeles extended its eviction moratorium on January 25, 2022. This moratorium applies to tenants residing in incorporated cities within the County of Los Angeles. Effective June 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, a residential tenant whose household income is at 80 percent Area Median Income or below and who is unable to pay rent incurred from June 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022 is protected from eviction under the County Moratorium, so long as the reason for the nonpayment was financial impacts related to COVID-19, and the residential tenant has provided notice to the landlord to this effect and self-certified their income level and financial hardship within certain timeframes (see https://dcba.lacounty.gov/noevictions/ for more information on the County’s eviction moratorium as well as self-certification forms).

Inflation rates continue to spike and rising costs are hampering residents’ ability to recover from the loss of income and unexpected expenses that many experienced during the pandemic’s first two years. COVID-19 cases are increasing even as mitigation measures, such as masking and social distancing, are no longer required.

Other rent stabilization jurisdictions have been able to adjust to these conditions by freezing, lowering, or implementing caps on rent increases for controlled units, including Oakland (3% cap), City of Los Angeles (freeze), City of Beverly Hills (3.1% cap for eligible units, freeze for others), Los Angeles County unincorporated areas (freeze) and City of West Hollywood (freeze), among others.

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 6 of 11
The existing Annual General Adjustment formula in City Charter Section 1805 also provides for a dollar-amount ceiling, which is based upon the average of the 85th percentile of maximum allowable rent for all rent-controlled units and the 85th percentile of the maximum allowable rent for all rent-controlled units with a base-rent established before January 1, 1999 multiplied by the 6% annual general adjustment (effective September 1, 2022). According to the Rent Control agency, this dollar cap is $140.00 per month. Similar to the 6% cap, a $140.00 per month increase imposes severe hardship on tenants.

Two alternative proposals to address the general adjustment were discussed at the Council meeting on July 26, 2022 and at the Rent Control Board meeting on July 28, 2022. One proposal consists of a modified reduction to the general adjustment formula in Charter Section 1805 to reduce the 6% adjustment in effect on September 1, 2022 to a net 3% average increase for the period from September 1, 2022 – August 31, 2023.

The other proposal would temporarily reduce the 6% adjustment by decreasing rents for rent-controlled units with rents that are less than the median of the MARs for 2021 for 0- ,1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units, respectively.

Staff now seeks direction on which proposal to place on the ballot and will combine whichever proposal is approved with ballot language previously approved by the City Council to require that an owner intend to occupy a unit for two years unless extenuating circumstances exist and revise certain election procedures.

RCB authority to suspend or modify GA during emergencies At its July 12 meeting, the City Council considered the Rent Control Board’s proposal to amend the Charter to give the Board the authority to suspend or modify the otherwiseallowed Annual General Adjustment during declared states of emergency in order to protect tenants’ health and safety. The Council, instead, directed staff to bring back proposed language to give the City Council that authority instead of the Rent Control Board. This is problematic, however, insofar as the Board would still be responsible for regulating rent controlled units and overseeing or processing the petition process for rent adjustments based upon fair return. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Board be allowed to suspend or modify Annual Rent Adjustments upon a declaration of

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 7 of 11
a local emergency by the County of Los Angeles, the City Council or the Director of Emergency Services.

To effectuate this change, staff is recommending that the Council reconsider its direction and approve language that would amend Article XVIII to give the Board that authority as proposed. Staff’s recommendation is based on two factors: 1) the structure of the Charter and its delegation of authority; and 2) competing state law which would preclude suspension of rent increases by the City Council outside the rent control framework in Article XVIII of the City Charter.

State law governs rent increase limits for units not covered by Rent Control. As a result, the City Council cannot amend the Charter to limit rent increases for non-controlled residential rental units because that would conflict with state law. Given that only rentcontrolled units would be impacted by this change, any amendment must be to Article XVIII, which is under the purview of the Rent Control Board. The Board governs the Rent Control Law and is responsible for its administration, including petitions for hearings for rent adjustments.

The Board’s authority, however, would be limited under this proposal in that it can only be exercised after the City Council or other governing body has declared a local, state or federal emergency and only if necessary to protect the public’s health and safety.

And, as always, property owners can avail themselves of the rent increase petition process if a suspension or modification of the annual adjustment precludes them from receiving a fair and reasonable return.

Ideally, the County’s eviction moratorium should work in concert with the voters’ approval of the Annual General Adjustment formula and the City’s financial support to rent-burdened tenants to fill the gap for the period during which the 6% increase remains in effect. As explained, above, based upon the existing Annual General Adjustment formula in the City Charter, the 6% Annual General Adjustment (or $140.00 per month cap), will become effective on September 1, 2022, and will likely result in more rent-burdened Santa Monica households, on top of an existing affordability crisis worsened by COVID. In less than two years, Santa Monicans have received approximately $38M in COVID rent relief. Despite this assistance, the pandemic, rising

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 8 of 11
consumer prices, low wages, and rising rents place households at risk of homelessness. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to come back with a local eviction moratorium ordinance as an emergency ordinance before September 1, 2022.

Direct Financial Assistance
In June, the City’s Community Services Department (CSD) and Rent Control agency released a Housing Needs Survey which was available online and on paper at City Hall, Parks, Libraries, and key service providers, included in the Rent Control summer mailer, promoted on City social media channels, and available through 311. The survey, which gathered data about current needs and the expected impacts of the Rent Control General Adjustment, closed in mid-July. Data analysis is underway.

CSD staff will provide an update to Council later this summer on the means and methods to provide Santa Monicans facing severe rent burdens due to the pandemic, household income, rising rents, disability, age, and/or other criteria with local homelessness prevention assistance this fall, first tapping budgeted $750,000 ARPA dollars. Staff will draw on the City’s experience with the early-pandemic Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which was able to operate quickly and efficiently, due to a simple program design and a sole-source partnership with a local non-profit. In the fall, CSD staff will present the HOME ARP Allocation Plan for the expenditure of an additional $2.2M of federal one-time funds. In the meantime, the City has executed an agreement with LAFLA to implement the expanded eviction prevention services approved by Council on May 11th. County COVID-19 tenant protections remain in place for households at 80% of AMI through December 31, 2022.

Options
Council may consider options to what was considered at the prior meeting.

Option 1: Limiting the time that the Annual General Adjustment is capped at 3% and request the City Council and Rent Control Board convene prior to the November 2024 election to discuss permanent equitable solutions to General Adjustment provisions in the Charter. Under this option, the proposed revisions to the Annual General Adjustment would remain in effect until August 31, 2025. This could be accommodated

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 9 of 11
by adding a new provision in Section 1805(a), as follows:
(6) The amendments set forth in Charter Section 1805(a), Subsections (3) and (4) above, if approved by the voters at the November 2022 election, shall sunset and shall no longer be in effect following August 31, 2025, and at such time these specified Subsections shall revert to the provisions in effect as of November 2022 prior to the election. Between January 1, 2024, and May 1, 2024, the Rent Control Board and the City Council shall hold hearings and consider additional ballot measures to address permanent equitable solutions to the General Adjustment provisions.

Option 2: Adjust the timing when the Annual General Adjustment cap is reduced from March 1, 2023 to February 1, 2023. As discussed earlier in this staff report, the City is committed to deploying resources to assist renters impacted by the 6% increase in rents that will go into effect on September 1, 2022. Extending the implementation date to March 1, 2023 as discussed at the July 26, 2022 City Council meeting will require additional resources to assist renters. Given that the City is still assessing the amount of assistance that will be needed, adjusting the implementation timeline to February 1, 2023 will have the effect of reducing the time in which renters will be impacted by the 6% rent increase and will either allow the City to deploy its limited resources to help more households or provide more resources to households. If City Council were to adjust the timeline to February 1, 2023, the following would be the proposed change to Section 1805 (a):
(4) Commencing on February 1, 2023, the general adjustment during the period from February 1, 2023, through August 31, 2023, shall be 0.8% of the maximum allowable rent (MAR) in effect as of August 31, 2022, with a maximum dollar amount limit of nineteen dollars ($19) (“Adjusted GA”).

Absent an individual adjustment pursuant to subparagraphs (c) through (h) of this Section, the MAR during this seven month transition period shall be the MAR in effect as of August 31, 2022, plus the Adjusted GA.

Notwithstanding the Board’s June 2022 announcement of the 2022 general adjustment, the MAR for any period after August 31, 2023, shall

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 10 of 11
be calculated pursuant to this Section 1805 as if the General Adjustment for the entire period from September 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023, had been three (3) percent, with a maximum dollar amount limit of seventy dollars ($70).

Option 3: Council may request the Rent Control Board to look at ways to reduce the tenants’ share of registration fees, at least temporarily while the impact of rent increases are being felt.

Environmental Analysis
The proposed resolutions and/or ordinance are exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed resolutions and/or ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Based on past practice, the Rent Board would reimburse the City for any additional costs incurred by the City as a result of placing the measures and/or ordinance on the November ballot.

Attachments
Attachment A – Resolution placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to revise requirements for owners to evict tenants for owner-occupancy; revise election procedures; and reduce the General Annual General Adjustment.

Attachment B - Resolution placing a measure on the November 8, 2022, ballot that would amend Article XVIII of the City Charter to authorize the Rent Control Board to suspend or modify otherwise-allowed annual general adjustments to rent ceilings during a declared state of emergency by the President of the United States, the Governor, the County of Los Angeles, or upon a declaration of a local emergency by the City Council or Director of Emergency Services. Nothing in this section precludes a landlord from filing a petition for an upward rent adjustment per Section

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 11 of 11
1805 of the City Charter.

Attachment C – July 12, 2022 City Council staff report
Attachment D – July 26, 2022 City Council staff report
Attachment E – July 28, 2022 Rent Control Board staff report Prepared By: Susan Cola, Assistant City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. RC-ExA-Resolution for Change to GA
B. RC-ExB-Resolution for emergency authority
C. RC-ExC-CC July 12, 2022 Staff Report
D. RC-ExD-CC July 26, 2022 Staff Report
E. RC-ExE-RC July 28, 2022 Staff Report
F. Written Comments

10.G.c
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: C-August 3 Staff Report (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
1 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment

EXTERNAL
The 6% rent increase is authorized by the terms of City Charter. The Council cannot circumvent rights and benefits conferred by a Charter provision by passing an ordinance. Landlords have bills to pay on a current basis. The proposed ordinance would excuse all rent based on a minimal incremental increase of the amount between 3% and 6%. It allows renters who are not financially challenged to defer rent. The Constitution guarantees landlords to a fair return on their property. Compelling landlords to house tenants without any return or a current fair return violates state and federal constitutional rights to fair compensation when government takes their property or denies them the right to exclude people from their property. Consider how such an ordinance would affect you if applied to your sales revenues or salary. If the City wants to help tenants in financial distress, do so with City tax dollars, not by usurping the property and Charter rights of property owners who invested their capital to buy private property in the City.

If you really think this is lawful, why don’t you simply pass an ordinance that all tenants can live in their apartments forever rent free. You do not have the authority to deny landlords rights under the Charter or state and federal constitutions.
‐Mary
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.G
08/23/22
2 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:00 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G ‐ Comment

This kind of activity that is proposed is a further disincentive to people from investing their capital in residential housing which further aggravates the housing crisis. I am tired of your Soviet approach ‐ I have tenants in arrears and am happy to work with them ‐ pass this unlawful and unwise ordinance and I will be evicting them and exiting the rental business. If you really think this is lawful, why don’t you simply pass an ordinance that all tenants can live in their apartments forever rent free. You do not have the authority to deny landlords rights under the Charter or state and federal constitutions. ‐Mary
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.G
08/23/22
3 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
4 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
5 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
6 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
7 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
8 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
9 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
10 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
11 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
12 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
13 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
14 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1258 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
15 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
16 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
17 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
18 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
19 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
20 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) Item 10.G
08/23/22
21 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment

EXTERNAL
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Begin forwarded message:

On Monday, August 22, 2022, 3:00 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

I note the proposed ordinance states:

WHEREAS, reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases; This is utter nonsense. My tenants have resided in their units for decades. Most are behind in their rent and I can deal with that without the city’s intervention. But inflation is greater than 3% and landlords have to deal with that in terms of their building’s and personal expenses. And the law is clear that a fair return requires that inflation be taken into account on a current basis. You are providing an incentive to landlords to evict their tenants in order to keep up with inflation by exercising their Costa Hawkins rights. You are providing an incentive to landlords to file rent increase petitions to keep up with inflation which will also seek to capture the administrative costs of pursuing the petition. You cannot eliminate a landlord’s constitutional right to a fair return that keeps up with inflation by passing an ordinance or amending the charter.

I and other landlords sick of your abuse of housing providers. You control the prices, and impose numerous obligations. Pass this ordinance and the tenants will pay the price by more landlords exercising their eviction and Ellis rights. If you want to protect tenants, do it with your tax dollars, not other peoples’ private property. Perhaps the City should require the Mayor to house the homeless in her spare bedrooms or in an ADU she will build on her property at her expense. If you don’t want to house the homeless yourselves, don’t force landlords to do it without being paid a fair return on a current basis.
‐Mary.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Monday, August 22, 2022, 2:00 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 10.G
08/23/22
22 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 2 The 6% rent increase is authorized by the terms of City Charter. The Council cannot circumvent rights and benefits conferred by a Charter provision by passing an ordinance. Landlords have bills to pay on a current basis. The proposed ordinance would excuse all rent based on a minimal incremental increase of the amount between 3% and 6%. It allows renters who are not financially challenged to defer rent. The Constitution guarantees landlords to a fair return on their property.

Compelling landlords to house tenants without any return or a current fair return violates state and federal constitutional rights to fair compensation when government takes their property or denies them the right to exclude people from their property. Consider how such an ordinance would affect you if applied to your sales revenues or salary. If the City wants to help tenants in financial distress, do so with City tax dollars, not by usurping the property and Charter rights of property owners who invested their capital to buy private property in the City.

You do not have the authority to deny landlords rights under the Charter or state and federal constitutions.
‐Mary
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 10.G
08/23/22
23 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: August 23 Agenda Item 10G - Comment
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Re: August 23 Agenda Item 10G ‐ Comment

EXTERNAL
I note the proposed ordinance states:

WHEREAS, reducing the rent cap from 6% to 3% would strike the correct balance in times of higher inflation given that property owners continue to have the benefit of setting the initial rents at any amount upon a vacancy and, thus, can account for any maintenance cost increases;
This is utter nonsense. My tenants have resided in their units for decades. Most are behind in their rent and I can deal with that without the city’s intervention. But inflation is greater than 3% and landlords have to deal with that in terms of their building’s and personal expenses. And the law is clear that a fair return requires that inflation be taken into account on a current basis. You are providing an incentive to landlords to evict their tenants in order to keep up with inflation by exercising their Costa Hawkins rights. You are providing an incentive to landlords to file rent increase petitions to keep up with inflation which will also seek to capture the administrative costs of pursuing the petition. You cannot eliminate a landlord’s constitutional right to a fair return that keeps up with inflation by passing an ordinance or amending the charter.

I and other landlords sick of your abuse of housing providers. You control the prices, and impose numerous obligations.

Pass this ordinance and the tenants will pay the price by more landlords exercising their eviction and Ellis rights. If you want to protect tenants, do it with your tax dollars, not other peoples’ private property. Perhaps the City should require the Mayor to house the homeless in her spare bedrooms or in an ADU she will build on her property at her expense. If you don’t want to house the homeless yourselves, don’t force landlords to do it without being paid a fair return on a current basis.
‐Mary.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Monday, August 22, 2022, 2:00 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 10.G
08/23/22
24 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 2 The 6% rent increase is authorized by the terms of City Charter. The Council cannot circumvent rights and benefits conferred by a Charter provision by passing an ordinance. Landlords have bills to pay on a current basis. The proposed ordinance would excuse all rent based on a minimal incremental increase of the amount between 3% and 6%. It allows renters who are not financially challenged to defer rent. The Constitution guarantees landlords to a fair return on their property. Compelling landlords to house tenants without any return or a current fair return violates state and federal constitutional rights to fair compensation when government takes their property or denies them the right to exclude people from their property. Consider how such an ordinance would affect you if applied to your sales revenues or salary. If the City wants to help tenants in financial distress, do so with City tax dollars, not by usurping the property and Charter rights of property owners who invested their capital to buy private property in the City.

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marie Iding <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do not support continuing nonpayment of rent

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
For those of us age 65 and older with 4 rental units or fewer, depending upon this income in retirement, nonpayment of rent is an unsustainable hardship. a solution that would please all parties would be for the City of Santa Monica to cover all rent that tenants currently owe, similar to the way the state did during COVID.

Please consider this,
Thank you,
Marie Iding
Item 10.G
08/23/22
26 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection)

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start Here!”
621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Director, Government Affairs &
External Relations
[email protected]
213.384.4131; Ext. 309
August 23, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Hon. Mayor Sue Himmelrich and
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
City Hall – Council Chambers
685 Main Street, Room 250
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance to Add Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.080 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (Agenda Item 10G) Dear Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

At today’s Santa Monica City Council meeting, the Council will consider adoption of an urgency ordinance prohibiting evictions due to non-payment of rent where a renter receives a rent increase that is more than 3% above the maximum allowable rent (MAR) in effect prior to September 1, 2022 and the renter self-certifies that due to financial distress they are unable to pay the rent.

The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Association) is strongly opposed to the proposed ordinance and strongly urges the City Council to reject its adoption.

Our Association is extremely concerned with the manner in which this item is being brought forth, as it was added to the meeting agenda sometime on Friday, August 19th which allows for only limited opportunity for stakeholder review and engagement. Important and necessary components of the legislative process are government transparency and stakeholder engagement which serve to inform the Council on the key issues involved and facilitates the adoption of balanced solutions for the betterment of all City residents. Moreover, this proposal is being advanced following the Council’s approval of a ballot measure, subject to voter approval, that would amend the 2022 general adjustment and permanently limit future annual allowable rent increases to 3% or $70 per month, whichever is less. This ballot measure was advanced because the City Council does not have the authority to bypass the City Charter relative to this matter. Yet, the Council is now seeking to circumvent the City Charter by imposing additional restrictions on rental housing providers’ ability to collect the full 2022 general adjustment, to which they are legally entitled based upon the existing City Charter rent control formula.

The 2022 general adjustment, in effect as of September 1, 2022, allows for a rent increase Item 10.G
08/23/22
27 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection)

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start Here!”
621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG of 6% or $140, whichever is less. The proposed ordinance impedes a rental housing provider’s ability to collect the full legally permissible rent increase by allowing any renter in a rent stabilized unit, regardless of household income and with no requirement for the submission of supporting documentation to simply assert that they are unable to pay rent due to financial distress.

Additionally, the proposed ordinance’s definition of financial distress bears no correlation to the COVID-19 pandemic and is broadly defined as “lacking sufficient funds to pay the rent while foregoing or without foregoing adequate food, shelter, healthcare, childcare, necessary transportation, or other life necessities for oneself or one’s dependents”. The City’s current local emergency is founded up the COVID-19 pandemic, what is the City’s legal authority to adopt what is essentially another “eviction moratorium” category outside the scope of the current local emergency? Low-income Santa Monica renters who are financially impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic are already covered by the Los Angeles County eviction moratorium in effect through the end of 2022.

Equally significant, renters are only required to provide notice and “self-certify” that they are experiencing financial distress as defined in the ordinance, regardless of the renter’s household income and the financial dynamics that may have precipitated the current circumstances.

Throughout the pandemic, our members have generally worked with their renters who have been financially impacted by COVID-19, but have also witnessed circumstances where renters, who have not been impacted by the pandemic, have taken advantage of the situation, and simply not paid rent due despite having the financial ability to do so. Renters should be required to provide supporting documentation. Moreover, how can the City Council disregard a renter’s household income in assessing financial distress? Most significant, the U.S. Supreme Court has found self-certification to be improper and unconstitutional.

The Association has repeatedly raised the severe financial challenges of the City’s housing providers and related impacts that will ultimately affect the very renters that the City seeks to protect.

Rental housing providers are reeling from the financial impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, related government mandates and challenging rent collections over the last several years, and with many small business “mom and pop” property owners already on the verge of selling or losing their property. This adverse financial situation has only been compounded by runaway inflationary pressures effecting the whole economy with the current inflation rate which is now at 9% or more.

The exit of these small business, “mom and pop” housing providers that furnish the bulk of the City’s affordable housing units, would be an enormous loss to the City and a potentially devastating reduction in much needed affordable housing.

During highly inflationary periods, such as we are currently experiencing, where cost of all goods and services are rapidly escalating, it is critical that the rent increases provide independent “mom and pop” rental housing providers with the ability to properly maintain their buildings. Extreme action, as the one being proposed by the City Council will most certainly drive out small business rental housing providers, drastically reducing the already scarce affordable housing, and exacerbating the City’s housing problems. Instead of seeking solutions that alleviate financial hardships of one group at the expense of another, the City Council should assist vulnerable Item 10.G
08/23/22
28 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection)

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start Here!”
621 S. WESTMORELAND AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90005 | 213.384.4131 | AAGLA.ORG residents through City funded rental assistance programs and not by further infringing on responsible Santa Monica rental housing providers ability to collect permissible rent increases.

To reiterate, the proposed ordinance serves to bypass the City Charter and the 2022 General Adjustment, calculated utilizing the City Charter’s rent control formula, exceeds the City Council’s authority by imposing restrictions on owner’s ability to collect legally permissible rent with no correlation to the COVID-19 local emergency and allows renters to self-certify their inability to pay rent which is contrary to U.S Supreme Court ruling. We strongly urge the City Council to reject adoption of the proposed ordinance and provide Santa Monica renters in need with city-funded assistance.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131; Ext. 309 or contact me via electronic mail at [email protected].

Very truly yours,
Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Danielle Leidner-Peretz
Item 10.G
08/23/22
29 of 29 Item 10.G
08/23/22

10.G.d
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Written Comment (5319 : Emergency Ordinance - Eviction Protection) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.H
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Code Enforcement Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the City’s Tenant Protection Laws
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council consider introducing for first reading an ordinance amending the City’s Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, Tenant Harassment Code, and Tenant Protection Code.

Executive Summary
There are five proposed amendments, all of which concern Article Four of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (S.M.M.C.). The first three would amend the Housing AntiDiscrimination Code (Chapter 4.28) and the Tenant Harassment Code (Chapter 4.56), and would expand the list of protected classes for tenant protections, to be consistent with recent changes in state and federal fair housing laws. The amendments provide additional examples of unlawful discriminatory harassment, and also provide examples of unlawful housing discrimination based on source of income, in particular clarifying what constitutes discrimination targeting recipients of housing subsidies such as Section 8 housing vouchers and COVID-related rental assistance.

The final two proposed amendments are to the Tenant Protection Code (Chapter 4.27).

The first of those two require landlords to report attempted evictions to the City. With studies of Los Angeles County evictions showing that unrepresented tenants face disruptive displacement over 90% of the time and less than 10% of the time when a landlord serves an eviction or unlawful detainer, this reporting requirement will help the

10.H
Packet Pg. 1274
2 of 9
City track all endeavors to evict, and also assist the City in assessing evictions’ impact on the community and the impact of the City’s pilot Right To Counsel program.

The second would require landlords to provide tenants notice of their rights to attorney’s fees along with any change to attorney’s fees provisions. There have been several attempts by landlords to change a residential lease’s attorneys’ fees provisions with language that seemingly thwarts the tenant’s pursuit of attorney’s fees under Santa Monica’s tenant protection laws. However, the right to pursue fees under those laws and other civil rights in housing laws is not waivable. Therefore, such attempts to limit fees are misleading.

Discussion
The primary purpose of these amendments is to update, clarify, and strengthen Santa Monica’s tenant protection laws.

A. Amendment to the Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, SMMC Section

4.28.030
Santa Monica’s fair housing law, the Housing Anti-Discrimination Code, prohibits landlords from committing several types of housing discrimination such as refusal to rent, making discriminatory statements, and refusing to make reasonable accommodations or modifications.

As an affordable housing measure, Santa Monica amended its fair housing law in 2015 to include protections against source of income discrimination. In particular—and in a pioneering expansion of what “source of income” included—Santa Monica defined “source of income” to include any type of rental assistance, such as the Section 8 housing voucher. The impetus for this law was evidence that Santa Monica landlords were refusing to rent to Section 8 voucher holders or refusing to let their rent-burdened tenants use a voucher or other types of rental assistance.

Community education about and enforcement of that law by the Public Rights Division of the City Attorneys’ Office and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles has resulted in dozens of refusals to rent by landlords being reversed. The enforcement program also helps bring the diversity of the Section 8 pool to the City’s population in terms of

10.H
Packet Pg. 1275
3 of 9
income and race. But at the heart of the program are stories of low-income people and families who had been turned away—sometimes several times. With the law and enforcement protecting them, they were finally able to either move into a new home in Santa Monica or were able to afford to stay in their existing home.

The City Attorney’s Office offers for consideration that the source of income protections be clarified by providing specific types of discriminatory actions, all of which have been documented in Santa Monica. Providing these examples is declaratory of existing law and it will help landlords better understand their obligations and tenants their rights. It will also help advocates, the courts, and the CAO with enforcement.

The proposed language would be added to Section 4.28.030 and would read as follows:
(i) Refuse to accept from a prospective or current tenant rent in the form of rental assistance from any federal, state, local, or non-profitadministered benefit or subsidy program including, but not limited to, the Section 8 voucher program. Refusal to accept includes failure or an unreasonable delay in filling out and returning any necessary paperwork.

This amendment’s clarification that a “current tenant” is protected from discrimination will also help the City with one of its top three stated goals in its 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing -- to “prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents.” The CAO will continue to assign an attorney from its Public Rights section to oversee and monitor the law. The CAO will work with the Housing and Human Services Division to initiate education efforts to inform families, tenants, landlords, and legal aid providers about this amendment.

B. Amendments to the Tenant Harassment Ordinance, SMMC Chapter 4.56

1. Adding specific examples of unlawful harassment
The City’s Tenant Harassment Ordinance prohibits landlords from bad faith harassment of tenants. The ordinance bans twelve types of harassment, including interruption of services, discrimination, coercion to vacate, and baseless eviction attempts.

10.H
Packet Pg. 1276
4 of 9
Subsection 4.56.020(f) prohibits a landlord from, in bad faith, influencing or attempting to influence “a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion[.]”
Staff proposes that specific examples of fraud, intimidation and coercion be provided.

Providing these examples will be declaratory of existing law and will help landlords better understand their obligations and tenants their rights.

The proposed language would be added to Section 4.56.020(f) as follows:

Examples of such influence or attempts include but are not limited to the following: excessive rent increases, baseless threats to evict, threats to report immigration status, terminating tenancy on a fraudulent basis of owner-occupancy, excessive and baseless entries.

A California appellate court has recently affirmed a city’s prohibition of excessive rent increases made in bad faith. The California Immigrant Tenant Protection Act of 2020 prohibits threats to report immigration status. Such threats and the other examples have all been the subject of harassment lawsuits filed by the Public Rights Division and with successful outcomes.

2. Adding new classes protected under fair housing laws.

The current law provides an exhaustive and limited list of protected classes. A landlord may not in bad faith “violate any law which prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, age, parenthood, marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS or occupancy by a minor child[.]” This list has not been updated in over a decade. It does not include the City’s own relatively new protected class, source of income and it does not include new state law protected class of immigration status.

The additional protected classes would be added to Section 4.56.020(h), with the proposed changes below in bold italics:
(h) Violate any law which prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, age, parenthood, marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS or

10.H
Packet Pg. 1277
5 of 9
occupancy by a minor child, immigration status, source of income, or any other class expressly protected by a local, state, or federal law.

The proposal not only updates the ordinance with new classes but changes the nature of the list from an exhaustive, limited list to a flexible one upon which any new class protected under future state or federal laws are immediately protected from bad faith harassment in Santa Monica.

C. Amendments to the Tenant Protection Code, Chapter 4.27.

1. Eviction Reporting Requirements
The primary purpose of this proposed ordinance is to monitor the extent of evictions and their disruptive impact on Santa Monica tenants and families. A secondary purpose is to assess the impact of the pilot Right to Counsel program. In December of 2020, the City passed as part of its pandemic emergency orders an order requiring landlords to report all endeavors to evict to the City Attorney’s Office. The order expires on March 31, 2022. Staff recommends converting the order into an ordinance so that the City has a permanent means to assess the impact of evictions and the pilot Right to Counsel program.

In the wake of the public health and economic crises created by the COVID-19 emergency, the City is at risk of an unprecedented wave of evictions. City and state eviction moratoriums have delayed and blunted the impact of potential early evictions.

But there is little doubt that among Santa Monica’s 32,000-plus renter households, the aftermath of the COVID-19 emergency will result in a significant number continuing to be unable to pay rent and facing eviction efforts in a system stacked against unrepresented tenants. Data suggests as well that the tenants most likely to face eviction will be minority and low-income tenants.

Making sure that Santa Monica’s tenants have access to legal representation aligns with the City’s commitment to maintaining an inclusive and diverse community and offering housing at all affordability levels. Along with its measurement of evictions’ impact on the community, the reporting requirement will also help the City monitor how well local programs and advocacy are doing with respect to legal services.

10.H
Packet Pg. 1278
6 of 9
According to the 2019 STOUT report, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Providing A Right to Counsel to Tenants In Eviction Proceedings, Los Angeles County’s most vulnerable tenants are frequently unrepresented and evicted by landlords who are represented by experienced counsel. Providing tenants with counsel is critical to leveling the playing field and would significantly improve the likelihood that eviction cases are decided fairly and on the merits.

The STOUT report concluded that 97% of Los Angeles County tenants are unrepresented in eviction cases while landlords are unrepresented in just 12% of their cases. Unrepresented tenants in LA County get displaced 99% of the time, but if they get representation, they avoid displacement 95% of the time. The STOUT report also concluded that 25 of 51 Right to Counsel programs likely result in many direct and indirect benefits to the community: decreased use of shelters, increased housing stability, decreased impact on employment, decreased impact on law enforcement, and decreased impact on the health of displaced children.

The reporting requirement will enable the City to create its own report each year, much like the STOUT Report, and assess the impact that evictions have in the City. The information will also help inform need for the City’s right to counsel program and help the City accomplish one of its top three stated goals in its 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing -- to “prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents.” The CAO will assign an attorney from its Public Rights section to oversee and monitor the program. The CAO will work with the Housing and Human Services Division to initiate education efforts to inform families, tenants, landlords, and legal aid providers about the availability of this program and the new reporting requirements.

This ordinance is drafted to parallel a nearly identical emergency order issued in December of 2020 and which has been extended until December 31, 2022.

2. Attorney’s Fees Notice Requirement
The primary purpose of this proposed ordinance is to assure that tenants are not misled about their rights to pursue attorneys’ fees under Santa Monica’s tenant protection laws.

10.H
Packet Pg. 1279
7 of 9
The Santa Monica Municipal Code (S.M.M.C.) has two tenant protection laws that have attorneys’ fees provisions, the Housing Anti-Discrimination and Tenant Harassment Codes. A landlord who violates the provisions of these Chapters is liable for attorneys’ fees and costs, along with damages and penalties. (See S.M.M.C. section 4.28.060 (d) and Section 4.56.040 (d). California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also makes landlords liable for attorneys’ fees and costs. (See Cal. Gov’t Code section 12965(b))
The CAO has become aware over the past few years of landlords and their attorneys sending their in-place tenants a notice that changes the attorney’s fees provisions in their lease. For example, we have seen landlords attempt amendments that include sweeping language that seemingly removes any chance of pursuing fees in any type of legal dispute that might arise between the landlord and the tenant. In other examples, the amount of fees have been capped.

However, Santa Monica’s two attorneys’ fees provisions cited above do not have any exception nor do they allow any caps; the landlord is liable for fees regardless of what a lease might provide or an amendment to the lease.

Therefore, such amendment attempts would very likely be found to be null and void if the tenant pursued her attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party at the end of litigation.

However, the concern is that unknowing tenants and even their attorneys might be misled into believing they are prevented by the amendment from pursuing fees or that the total is capped by the amendment. This could discourage tenants from pursuing their rights to begin with. It could also discourage attorneys from taking the case, especially in the case of low-income tenants who cannot afford to pay attorneys’ fees. (Attorneys’ fees provisions are often included in civil rights laws to better assure the possibility that the tenant, especially low-income tenants, can obtain willing legal representation.) It could also thwart the Santa Monica laws providing for those fees.

The proposed notice requirement does not delve into the language of specific attempted amendments. Rather, it simply requires a notice about the effect of Santa Monica’s attorneys’ fees provisions.

Here is the language of the proposed notice:

10.H
Packet Pg. 1280
8 of 9
“The attorney’s fees provisions in tenant protection laws such as the City’s Tenant Harassment Code and Housing Anti-Discrimination Code that allow a prevailing tenant to pursue his or her own attorney’s fees from the landlord (fee-shifting) cannot be waived by a tenant or changed or capped by a landlord’s amendments to a lease. Any such lease amendments or provisions are null and void with respect to the fee-shifting in tenant protection laws.”
Requiring this notice will also work hand in hand with the pilot Right to Counsel program by making it clear that tenants and their attorneys have the right to pursue attorneys’ fees if an eviction case involves fair housing or tenant harassment violations. It will also help the City accomplish one of its top three stated goals in its 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing -- to “prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents.” Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, staff finds that there is a significant public interest in making these amendments to update, clarify, and strengthen the City’s tenant protection laws.

Enforcement
As a matter of standard practice, the Public Rights Division will conduct outreach and education about these amendments. Enforcement itself occurs through warning letters and then, when necessary, lawsuits.

The City of Santa Monica has a long history of protecting tenancies to stabilize housing.

The Public Rights Division (PRD) of the City Attorney’s Office has also consistently and actively enforced tenant harassment and anti-discrimination laws to the benefit of many.

The PRD also provides significant community education and rights projects that help both landlords and tenants better understand their rights and responsibilities. Those efforts include two housing rights workshops each year attended by nearly 150 people annually and articles in the Santa Monica Daily Press that often focus on housing rights.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
No financial impacts will result from these amendments.

10.H
Packet Pg. 1281
9 of 9
Prepared By: Eda Suh, Deputy City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments
B. Written Comment

10.H
Packet Pg. 1282
1 City Council Meeting August 23, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 4.56.020,

4.28.030, AND ADDING SECTIONS 4.27.060 AND 4.27.070 TO CHAPTER 4.27 WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica is committed to protecting housing for all segments of the community, in particular for its most vulnerable residents, as a matter of social justice and human dignity and in order to preserve diversity; and WHEREAS, a crisis exists in the City of Santa Monica due to the lack of affordable housing, the high number of homeless people, and the high number of people at risk of homelessness; and
WHEREAS, this crisis has been created in part by high rental prices, insufficient production of affordable units, housing discrimination, tenant harassment, the inability of tenants to afford attorneys to represent them in evictions, and a lack of awareness of tenants’ rights; and
WHEREAS, a second and even more dire crisis has been created by the COVD19 pandemic and its economic fallout, followed by high inflation in Santa Monica and in which many tenants have lost income while facing higher expenses to the extent they have difficulty paying all or part of their monthly rent; and WHEREAS, local, state, federal and court moratoriums on evictions are beginning to end or have new legal requirements for further protection, setting up an unprecedented wave of attempted evictions, and

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 2 WHEREAS, approximately 71% of Santa Monica households (32,295) rent their homes; and
WHEREAS, Matthew Desmond reports in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Evicted:

Poverty and Profit in the American City, “Eviction’s fallout is severe. Losing a home sends families to shelters, abandoned homes, and the street. It invites depression and illness, compels families to move into degrading housing in dangerous neighborhoods, uproots communities, and harms children;” and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica renters will not experience this housing and eviction crisis equally. Poor and working-class tenants, tenants of color, families with children, and persons with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and housing crisis due to inequities and shortcomings in health care, employment, and housing WHEREAS, providing Santa Monica residents with access to legal services for unlawful detainer actions will help mitigate these crises and reduce the serious threats to the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Santa Monica; and WHEREAS, a lack of knowledge and awareness of tenants’ rights, a lack of knowledge and awareness about recently enacted laws (such as the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020) and orders (such as the Santa Monica Eviction Moratorium), and the fear of being evicted and being forced to seek housing in a limited housing market discourages many tenants from fighting evictions and asserting rights they may not be aware of, and this fear contributes to disruption of families and communities and to homelessness; and

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 3 WHEREAS, this housing emergency destabilizes families and neighborhoods, especially the most vulnerable among us, resulting in homelessness, and harm to social tranquility and the general welfare of Santa Monica, and WHEREAS, due to an inability to obtain legal representation because of a lack of resources, Santa Monica’s most vulnerable tenants are frequently unrepresented and evicted by landlords who are represented by competent and experienced counsel; and WHEREAS, landlords are overwhelmingly represented by attorneys in eviction cases in Los Angeles County, and tenants are not; and
WHEREAS, according to the December 2019 STOUT report, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Providing A Right to Counsel to Tenants In Eviction Proceedings, providing Los Angeles County tenants with counsel levels the playing field and significantly improves the likelihood that eviction cases are decided fairly and on the merits; and WHEREAS, the STOUT report concluded even before the pandemic that Right to Counsel programs are investments (in the case of Los Angeles, at least $3 back for each dollar spent) in a community in that by preventing the displacement of its residents, a city will later spend much less on social services, law enforcement, and shelter and other housing services; and
WHEREAS, providing tenants with counsel will increase housing stability, particularly for poor and working-class tenants, tenants of color, families with children and people with disabilities, which in turn will help prevent potentially massive displacement and homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the City must track how many evictions and endeavors to evict occur in Santa Monica, along with the nature of these attempts and their outcomes, and

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 4 WHEREAS, the City has made commitments to preserve and protect affordable housing in its current Consolidated Plan, Analysis of Fair Housing Impediments, and its April 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing; and
WHEREAS, one of the City’s top three stated goals in its April 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing was to “prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents” and the top strategy for achieving that goal is “explore the feasibility of a Right to Counsel Ordinance to protect tenants’ legal rights; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica City Council has police and emergency powers under its charter, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to these aforementioned police and emergency powers, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Santa Monica, it is necessary to provide access to legal services to tenants who are subject to eviction proceedings.

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has a long history of protecting and tenants and applicants for housing from housing discrimination, tenant harassment, bad faith evictions, and bad faith business practices; and
WHEREAS, protecting applicants and tenants from housing discrimination and tenant harassment is of paramount importance, especially during the current affordable housing crisis, and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office’s successful enforcement program regarding Section 8 and rental assistance discrimination has not only helped reverse numerous refusals by landlords to rent to protected tenants and applicants, it has also revealed the types of such discrimination, and

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 5 WHEREAS, the City’s Tenant Harassment Ordinance prohibits a landlord from, in bad faith, influencing or attempting to influence “a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion” it does not provide clarifying specific examples of such conduct, and
WHEREAS, examples of such harassment include excessive rent increases, baseless threats to evict, threats to report immigration status, terminating a tenancy on a fraudulent basis of owner-occupancy, and excessive and baseless entries by landlord or landlord’s agents, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Tenant Harassment Ordinance prohibits bad faith housing discrimination based on several protected classes such as race and disability, it does not include several relatively new classes added to state fair housing law such as source of income and immigration status, and
WHEREAS, a landlord’s change-of-lease terms limiting attorneys fees can be misleading in that a Santa Monica resident has a legal right under local law to attorneys fees if they are the prevailing party in a tenant protection case, and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.56.020 Prohibitions:

4.56.020 Prohibitions.

No landlord shall, with respect to property used as a rental housing unit under any rental housing agreement or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, do any of the following in bad faith:

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 6 (a) Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws;
(b) Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws;
(c) Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance once undertaken;
(d) Abuse the landlord’s right of access into a rental housing unit as that right is specified in California Civil Code Section 1954. This includes entries for “inspections” that are not related to necessary repairs or services; entries excessive in number; entries that improperly target certain tenants or are used to collect evidence against the occupant or otherwise beyond the scope of an otherwise lawful entry; (e) Abuse the tenant with words which are offensive and inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction;
(f) Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate a rental housing unit through fraud, intimidation or coercion (Examples of such influence or attempts include but are not limited to the following: excessive rent increases, baseless threats to evict, threats to report immigration status, terminating a tenancy on a fraudulent basis of owner-occupancy, excessive and baseless entries by landlord or landlord’s agents.) (g) Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm; (h) Violate any law which prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, age, parenthood,

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 7 marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS or occupancy by a minor child, immigration status, source of income, or any other class expressly protected by a local, state, or federal law. (i)(1) Take action to terminate any tenancy including service of any notice to quit or other eviction notice or bring any action to recover possession of a rental housing unit based upon facts which the landlord has no reasonable cause to believe to be true or upon a legal theory which is untenable under the facts known to the landlord. No landlord shall be liable under this subsection for bringing an action to recover possession unless and until the tenant has obtained a favorable termination of that action. (2) This subsection shall not apply to any attorney who in good faith initiates legal proceedings against a tenant on behalf of a landlord to recover possession of a rental housing unit;
(j) Interfere with a tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental housing unit as that right is defined by California law;
(k) Refuse to acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment; (l) Interfere with a tenant’s right to privacy, including, but not limited to, entering or photographing portions of a rental housing unit that are beyond the scope of a lawful entry or inspection.

SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.28.030, Prohibited Activities.

4.28.030 Prohibited activities.

It shall be unlawful for any person offering for rent or lease, renting, leasing, or listing any housing accommodation, or any authorized agent or employee of such person, to do or attempt to do any of the following:

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 8 (a) Refuse to rent or lease a housing accommodation, or access to or use of the common areas and facilities of the housing accommodation, serve a notice of termination of tenancy, commence an unlawful detainer action, or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or persons, a housing accommodation on the basis of disability, age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or actual occupancy of a minor child. (b) Represent to any person, on the basis of disability, age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or actual occupancy of the minor child that a housing accommodation is not available for inspection or rental when such housing accommodation is in fact available for inspection or rental. (c) Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, sign, advertisement, application, or contract with regard to a housing accommodation offered by that person that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination with respect to disability, age, source of income, parenthood, pregnancy, or the potential or actual occupancy of a minor child.
(d) Include in any rental agreement or lease for a housing accommodation a clause providing that as a condition of continued occupancy, the tenants shall remain childless or shall not bear children or otherwise not maintain a household with a person or persons of a certain age.
(e) Threaten to commence or commence eviction proceedings against any tenant on the grounds that he or she has breached a rental agreement if the alleged breach arises out of an increase in the number of occupants due to the marriage of the tenant, provided that the occupancy of the spouse and children of the spouse is otherwise lawful.

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 9 (f) Threaten to commence or commence eviction proceedings against any tenant head of household on the grounds that he or she has violated the provisions of a rental agreement where the violation consists of an increase in the number of occupants arising out of the birth, adoption, or change of legal custody of a minor child of whom the tenant head of household or his or her spouse is the parent or legal guardian, and provided that the occupancy of said minor child is otherwise lawful.
(g) Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy any dwelling. (h) Refuse to allow a person to make reasonable modifications, alterations or additions to existing premises occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability that are necessary to make the rental property accessible by persons with disabilities, under the following conditions:
(1) The landlord is not required to pay for the alterations, additions, or restoration unless otherwise required by State or Federal law;
(2) The landlord has the right to demand assurances that all modifications will be performed in a professional manner, and in accordance with applicable building codes, permitting requirements and other applicable laws;
(3) The landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for modification on the tenant’s agreement to restore the interior of the premises to its preexisting condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted.

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 10 (i) Refuse to accept from a prospective or current tenant rent in the form of rental assistance from any federal, State, local or non-profit-administered benefit or subsidy program including, but not limited to, the Section 8 voucher program. Refusal to accept includes failure or an unreasonable delay in filling out and returning any necessary paperwork.
(j) For purposes of this part, “disability” includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental disability as defined in California Government Code Section 12926. (k) For purposes of this part, “source of income” includes any lawful source of income or rental assistance from any federal, State, local or non-profit-administered benefit or subsidy program including, but not limited to, the Section 8 voucher program, for an existing tenant or prospective tenant.

SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.060 Landlord Reporting Requirements for Endeavors to Evict Residential Tenants

4.27.060 Landlord Reporting Requirements for Endeavors to Evict Residential Tenants
(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) “Endeavors to evict” means any attempt to begin the termination of tenancy or eviction process, such as notices to terminate tenancy, notices to pay rent or quit, notices to quit, and filing of unlawful detainer cases in court.

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 11 (b) Landlords shall email to the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office (CAO) at [email protected] unredacted copies of any notices of any endeavors to evict (pandemic-related or not), including a termination notice or a Summons and Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, within two (2) days of serving such notice or summons and complaint on a tenant.
(c) Landlords shall also provide the CAO, by emailing to [email protected] the following information within three (3) days of its availability to landlord: 1) whether tenant obtained a fee waiver; 2) whether tenant has legal representation; 3) whether landlord has legal representation; and 4) outcome of the endeavor to evict.
(d) This section shall be enforceable as a misdemeanor pursuant to Government Code Section 8665 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.16.100, or through the issuance of administrative citations in accordance with Chapter 1.09 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code with a fine for each violation of this section up to a maximum of $1000.

Violations of this section do not result in an affirmative defense for the tenant in an unlawful detainer action.

SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.27.070 Attorney fees provision in leases

4.27.070 Attorney fees provision in leases
(a) No landlord shall serve notice of an amendment to a lease’s attorney’s fees provision without including a separate notice that includes the following statement:

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 12 “The attorney’s fees provisions in tenant protection laws such as the City’s Tenant Harassment Code and its Housing Anti-Discrimination Code that allow a prevailing tenant to pursue his or her own attorneys fees from the landlord (fee-shifting) cannot be waived by a tenant or changed by a landlord’s amendments to a lease. Any such lease amendments or provisions are null and void with respect to the fee-shifting in tenant protection laws.”
(b) This section shall be enforceable as a misdemeanor pursuant to Government Code Section 8665 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.16.100, or through the issuance of administrative citations in accordance with Chapter 1.09 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code with a fine for each violation of this section up to a maximum of $1000.

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) 13 SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: ORD-ord-Tenant Amendments (5318 : Tenant Amendments) Item 10.H
08/23/22
1 of 1 Item 10.H
08/23/22

10.H.b
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Written Comment (5318 : Tenant Amendments) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember Davis that the Council allocate $10,000 of Council Discretionary Funds to the Main Street Business Improvement Association to partially offset the cost of a community open streets event on Main Street in October. This event is replacing Summer Soulstice (which Council has financially supported in the past) and will include a showcase of local businesses, artists, and musicians as well as the Halloween Pet Costume Contest which had over 100 participants last year. The funds will be used to pay permitting fees and other city-imposed costs of staging the event.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discret Funds as of 8.23.22

16.A
Packet Pg. 1297
Council Discretionary Funds
As of August 23, 2022
Sources (All Available Funds are start of FY 2022-23):

Amount
Unspent and uncommitted funds from prior year $ 88,067.16 FY 2022-23 - New Appropriation 122,696.00
Total unspent funds and new appropriation $ 210,763.16
Uses (Programmed Discretionary Funds):

Description Amount Programmed Date
Pier Palisades Signage $ (5,107.21) Rollover programmed from prior year Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) Car Show (5,000.00) Rollover programmed from prior year Police Activities League (PAL) (5,000.00) Rollover programmed from prior year Legal review of the deed of March 3, 1888 by Arcadia Bandini (10,000.00) Budget Adoption FY 2022-23, 6/28/22 Business Improvement District (BID) Annual Support (29,000.00) Council meeting, 7/14/22, Item 16A Westside Coalition for Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration (10,000.00) Council meeting, 7/14/22, Item 16A Santa Monica Pony League to repair scoreboard at Los Amigos Park (5,000.00) Council meeting, 7/14/22, Item 16A Samohi for bilingual graduation celebration (3,000.00) Council meeting, 7/14/22, Item 16A Santa Monica Sister Cities Association travel expenses for the official signing of a Friendship City agreement with the City
Council meeting, 7/26/22, Item 16C (3,500.00)
Total Programmed $ (75,607.21)
Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 135,155.95
August 23, 2022

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Discret Funds as of 8.23.22 (5310 : Discretionary funding for Main Street Event) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember De la Torre that the City Council allocate $5,000 of Council discretionary funds to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation to fund entertainment for the 2nd Annual Day of the Dead Celebration on the Santa Monica Pier. The celebration will be hosted inside the historic Looff Hippodrome Carousel and will be open and free to the public.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discret Funds as of 8.23.22

16.B
Packet Pg. 1299
Council Discretionary Funds
As of August 23, 2022
Sources (All Available Funds are start of FY 2022-23):

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Discret Funds as of 8.23.22 (5311 : Funds for the Day of the Dead Celebration on the Pier) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember Davis that the City waive rental fees associated with the partial use of the parking lot on the Santa Monica Pier to support the City’s annual commemoration of Veterans Day honoring and celebrating all those who have served our country in the Armed Forces, being planned in coordination with the United States Army.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comment

16.C
Packet Pg. 1301
Item 16.C
08/23/22
Item 16.C
08/23/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Written Comment (5313 : Waive fees for parking on the Pier for Veteran's Day) Item 16.C
08/23/22
Item 16.C
08/23/22

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Written Comment (5313 : Waive fees for parking on the Pier for Veteran's Day) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Mayor Pro Tem McCowan and Councilmembers Brock and Negrete that the City Council allocate up to $15,000 of their discretionary funds to the Public Policy Institute at Santa Monica College to support the 2023 Public Policy Symposium - an event jointly sponsored by Santa Monica College and Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discret Funds as of 8.23.22
B. Written Comment

16.D
Packet Pg. 1304
Council Discretionary Funds
As of August 23, 2022
Sources (All Available Funds are start of FY 2022-23):

16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Discret Funds as of 8.23.22 (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 5:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Item 16D

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
No more boondoggles!
Nothing relevant came from the last taxpayer handover for this thing that was NOT supported by the PNA or FOSP!
A handful of us attended a few of those and it was as one would expect, the same old same old people showing up and patting themselves on the back for having done so.

This is NOT the way to spend our LIMITED RESOURCES. Just STOP! Apply our money to meaningful things, like making our streets safe so kids don't keep getting mugged en route to and from school...so they are not enticed by a quid pro quo "Data for FREE Ice Cream" by undoubtedly unlicensed Ice Cream Ladies and conned into downloading an app and uploading their school schedules which include student names, Id#'s, grade, gender, parent address, parent phone numbers, etc... and so they can use OUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES again - SAFELY!
D. Request of Mayor Pro Tem McCowan and Councilmembers Brock and Negrete that the City Council allocate up to $15,000 of their discretionary funds to the Public Policy Institute at Santa Monica College to support the 2023 Public Policy Symposium - an event jointly sponsored by Santa Monica College and Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein Item 16.D
08/23/22
1 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: diana hinek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 16.D - oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
This is not the time to be allocating our precious taxpayer dollars on an inexplicable SMC event next year.

Please direct these resources to fund the things we need TODAY.

We need to have our libraries FULLY OPENED and SAFE.

We need a CROSSING GUARD at Lincoln and Ocean Park so the grade school kids can cross safely to and from school.

Thank you,
Diana
90405
‐‐
Birth Doula and Photographer
www.dearbirth.com
www.facebook.com/dearbirth
https://www.instagram.com/dearbirth
Item 16.D
08/23/22
2 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16.D. (SMC Public Policy Symposium) - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I am writing to oppose the "Request of Mayor Pro Tem McCowan and Councilmembers Brock and Negrete that the City Council allocate up to $15,000 of their discretionary funds to the Public Policy Institute at Santa Monica College to support the 2023 Public Policy Symposium - an event jointly sponsored by Santa Monica College and Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District." This is not the time to be allocating our precious taxpayer dollars on an inexplicable SMC event next year. Please direct these resources to fund the things we need TODAY. We need to have our libraries FULLY OPENED and SAFE. We need a CROSSING GUARD at Lincoln and Ocean Park so the grade school kids can cross safely to and from school.

Thank you,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.D
08/23/22
3 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Wade Major <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16.D. -- OPPOSE!!!

EXTERNAL
I’m a Malibu resident — so you don’t have to care what I think, but as we’re still part of the same school district — this is an insane expenditure.
$15,000 for the PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE at SMC? Su supposed the 2023 Public Policy Symposium? WHY? How does this do anything for SMMUSD? I understand what it does for SMC and for the two SMMUSD Board Members who have SMC affiliations (aka “conflicts of interest”) but our district schools have more pressing needs.

Arts programs, teacher’s aides and more.

If you’re going to throw away sums like this… throw them at something which shows up in SMMUSD classrooms — SMC can pay for its own perks.

This is a shocking thing to even propose.

Wade Major
Item 16.D
08/23/22
4 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 16.D. Oppose

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
This is not the time to be allocating our precious taxpayer dollars to an inexplicable SMC event next year.

Please direct these resources to fund the things we need TODAY.

We need to have our libraries FULLY OPENED and SAFE. I keep unsuccessfully trying to go to the main library on Friday. The library should be open on Fridays.

Also, kids need a CROSSING GUARD at Lincoln and Ocean Park so they can cross safely to and from school.

Thank you,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica resident, homeowner, and voter
Item 16.D
08/23/22
5 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Johanna Kracke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Re: Item 16.D

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
Please consider opposing item 16.D which would direct $15,000 to a project between SMC and SMMUSD in 2023. While maybe you don't consider this to be a lot of money, it could still be put to immediate use in our community. Areas such as paying crossing guards to keep our kids safe going to school (the local and national statistics on bike and pedestrian safety are absolutely terrifying, we need to be leaders in this and do everything possible to prevent traffic deaths). Also to reopen our PUBLIC libraries fully ‐ rehire our librarians and bring back *all* the vibrant programming they used to offer all over town!!
Thank you for your time and efforts.

Johanna Kracke
90404 resident with 2 children in SMMUSD
Item 16.D
08/23/22
6 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White
Subject: 8/23/22 City Council Mtg. Agenda Item 16-D - Why is the city giving SMC $15,000 to the Public Policy Institute at SMC?

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Why is the city giving SMC $15,000 from its discretionary fund when I can't even get the Community Services Department to give my neighborhood group any dollars to help activate Reed Park this summer? So you know, we're having our second Fourth Friday Festival this Friday 8/26 with live music at 7 PM and an outdoor movie of E.T. Bring your blanket, camp/beach chairs, picnic and/or snack and enjoy a summer evening out at Reed Park. Event is sponsored and paid for by Wilmont, SMPD and SMPOA. If you can't make it this Friday, please join us for 9/23 for live music at 7 PM and an outdoor movie of The Sandlot at Reed Park.

I researched the Public Policy Institute at SMC and saw that Dr. Richard Tahvildran-Jesswein, incumbent and candidate for SMC Board is the Co-Director along with Shari Davis. SMC has a proposed budget for 2022- 2023 of more than $67 million. With that large a budget, how does the city decide to give the SMC Public Policy Institute $15,000 for a symposium instead of activating Reed Park?

Somebody at SMC seems to be a much better negotiator than this resident.

Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 16.D
08/23/22
7 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:08 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: Oppose CC agenda item 16D

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I oppose the use of limited taxpayer dollars for this SMC event. Our finite resources must be directed to critical City infrastructure and services, not superfluous, niche expenses.

Thank you,
Michelle Gray
Santa Monica resident
Item 16.D
08/23/22
8 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Eunice Paek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 5:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 16.D-OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Hello;
Please add crosswalk between Pearl st and Ocean Park blvd on Lincoln Blvd. Or at the minimun have cross walk aids for Ocean park blvd.
‐ Pearl st and Ocean Park Blvd is 4 long blocks far. Most cross walks on Wilshire blvd or Santa Monica Blvd are 1~2 block apart. 4black apart is very pedestrian unfriendly.
‐ Adding a crosswalk will lower the motorcycle races on Lincoln blvd. in late nights. There will be less speeding cars. ‐ Link project which was already approved (Adding crosswalk islands and making Lincoln blvd. a more pedestrian friendly street) were to add a cross walk on Cedar or Pine st. This will be a more efficient and safe place to cross and add cross guards.
‐ With one of the most highly rated Elementary school being relocated to the corner of Lincoln+Ocean Park, this crosswalk addition would be essential for the hundred of young children’s safety. ‐ Lincoln Blvd is the area that has the most potential to be developed with restaurants, coffee shops and all sorts of amenities. People flow to Abbot Kinney or Rose after enjoying Ocean Park beach. We can bring back the flow to Lincoln Blvd, with few anchor stores and shops to begin with and pedestrian friendly cross walk. The crosswalk and development will pay for itself vey soon.

Thank you very much for your support and love for the city.

Sincerely,
Eunice Paek
90405
Item 16.D
08/23/22
9 of 9 Item 16.D
08/23/22

16.D.b
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: Written Comment (5320 : Discretionary funds to support Public Policy Symposium) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Parra, de la Torre, and Brock that the Council allocate up to $1,500 of Council Discretionary Funds to offset the cost of sending a mailer to all Housing Authority housing-voucher holders providing information and notice of a Housing Commission meeting on September 1 to solicit input and feedback that will inform recommendations from the Housing Commission to the City Council regarding the Santa Monica Resident Advisory Board.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Discret Funds as of 8.23.22
B. Written Comment

16.E
Packet Pg. 1315
Council Discretionary Funds
As of August 23, 2022
Sources (All Available Funds are start of FY 2022-23):

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Discret Funds as of 8.23.22 (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 7:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-E: Support funding for letter mailed to the RAB Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
For some inexplicable reason, the SMHA hasn't set aside HUD funds to support the RAB. In your next joint session with the SMHA, please be sure their budget includes funding for the RAB so they remain in compliance with HUD regulations. For tonight, please approve the funding so the HA can send a letter to ALL RAB members. Emails exclude half the membership so this is the only way to include all members in the process.

HUD guidelines are quite clear about what Housing Authorities responsibilities are in this regard:

W hat are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PH As have theresponsibilityto ensure thattheRAB can adequatelyserveits functionincluding:
• PH As m ustgivethe RABs suf icienttim e toreview and m ake recom m endations on thePlan.RABs w il be able to contribute best if they are provided w ith adequate inform ation regarding the PH A's program s and thepoliciesincludedintheFive-Yearand Annual PH A Plan. • The PH As should giveRABs advance noticeof m eetingsscheduled todiscussareasofthePlan (generaly,atleast48 hours,or m oredepending on the m eetingagenda). • RABs should alsobe provided w ithany existingdocum entsthat w ould assistthem to m ake productiverecom m endationsduring the w orking m eetings. • PH As should providetheRABs w ithreasonable m eans tocarryouttheirfunctionssuch as m aking availablea m eetingplacefordiscussingprogram sw iththeresidents.RABs should also have accessto any othercom m unication toolssuch asa telephone,w riting m aterial,or com putersthatm ay facilitatetheircontactsw ithotherresidenthouseholds ortoobtainfurther inform ationon theprogram s.

The wellbeing of over 1,600 households will benefit from facilitating the formation of a fully functioning, democratic RAB.

Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein 1 Item 16.E
08/23/22
1 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council 8/23/22 agenda item 16-E -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
August 22,2022

To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 8/23/22 agenda item 16-E -- Mailer to all housing voucher holders

I strongly support the allocation of $1,500 for sending a mailer to all Housing Authority housing-voucher holders, providing information and notice of a Housing Commission meeting on September 1st.

The purpose of the meeting is to solicit input and feedback that will inform recommendations from the Housing Commission to the City Council regarding the Santa Monica Resident Advisory Board.

The creation of a functioning Resident Advisory Board that truly represents ALL voucher holders, as is required by HUD, is long overdue. Sending out this mailer will be an important first step.

Item 16.E
08/23/22
2 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox; Douglas Sloan; David White Subject: Item 16 E.

EXTERNAL
I sincerely hope you alot this paltry sum that means so much to many who have had no voice when it comes to their relationship with the Housing Authority.

We need a real RAB.. not one stacked with friends of the staff to do as they say... we need to give residents a voice that has been denied to them in this area.

It is such a tiny amount and so sad there is even the attempt by staff and this City to say no to something
so very important.

Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Item 16.E
08/23/22
3 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock Subject: SUPPORT 16-E: funding for HC letter to RAB

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to approve this funding to facilitate the formation of a fully functioning, democratic SMHA Resident Advisory Board (RAB).

SMHA is obligated by federal HUD policy to ensure the RAB can function, which includes facilitating communication with and among RAB members. As such, and given that they are a federally funded, multimillion dollar institution, it is concerning that SMHA can't find money in their operational budget to send a letter. And this is not the first time SMHA has failed to facilitate RAB communication on its own.

However, SMHA program participants should not be punished for SMHA decisions. Please approve the funds requested in item 16e so these low income Santa Monicans can finally participate in the policy discussions that directly impact them. Then examine the SMHA budget and operations to prevent this deficit from occurring again.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best wishes,
Michelle Gray
Item 16.E
08/23/22
4 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White
Subject: City Cnl. Mtg. 8/23/22 - Item 16E - SUPPORT Mailer to all housing voucher holders and LET'S SEND WATER CONSERVATION INFO. & TIPS MAILERS TO ALL SM RESIDENTS i.e., all multifamily households in apartment and condo buildings

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,

I strongly support the allocation of $1,500 for sending a mailer to all Housing Authority housing-voucher holders, providing information and notice of a Housing Commission meeting on September 1st.

The purpose of the meeting is to solicit input and feedback that will inform recommendations from the Housing Commission to the City Council regarding the Santa Monica Resident Advisory Board.

The creation of a functioning Resident Advisory Board that truly represents ALL voucher holders, as is required by HUD, is long overdue. Sending out this mailer will be an important first step.

In a similar need for a mailer to reach ALL residents using water, I'd like to point out that during the extreme drought we are having that I was informed that WATER CONSERVATION INFORMATION AND TIPS brochures were ONLY SENT TO WATER ACCOUNT HOLDERS. What this means is that all single-family houses got a direct mailer informing them about the conservation requirements and tips to conserve. What it also meant is that direct mail only went to the account holder address for apartments (property manager, landlord) and condo (property manager, HOA) buildings. Apartment buildings and many condo buildings (converted apartment buildings) usually only have one water meter WHICH probably meant that almost no individuals in those buildings received that information. If we expect people to conserve water, WE HAVE TO INFORM THEM DIRECTLY via direct mail to their home address be it a single-family home, an apartment or a condo. We need to not cut costs where education and information outreach is involved regarding residents.

Regards,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh

Item 16.E
08/23/22
5 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White
Subject: City Council 8/23/22 Item 16E -- SMHA Mailer -- SUPPORT!

EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: The Board of the Pico Neighborhood Association
Re: Support for Item 16E, Council meeting of August 23, 2022 The PNA Board strongly urges the City Council to approve Item 16E, by which Council will allocate up to $1,500 of Council Discretionary Funds to offset the cost of sending a mailer to all Housing Authority housing-voucher holders providing information and notice of a Housing Commission meeting on September 1 to solicit input and feedback that will inform recommendations from the Housing Commission to the City Council regarding the Santa Monica Resident Advisory Board.

The Pico Neighborhood has the highest concentration of housing voucher holders in our city. The mailer provided for by these funds would enable the Santa Monica Housing Authority to inform Pico’s many low-income program participants about the creation of a revived Resident Advisory Board (RAB), as required by HUD.

Please support Item 16E.

Highest Regards,
PNA Board

Item 16.E
08/23/22
6 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis
Subject: 8-23-22 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 16E - Public Comment

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:

I am writing to request that the City Council vote to approve "the request of Councilmembers Parra, de la Torre, and Brock that the Council allocate up to $1,500 of Council Discretionary Funds to offset the cost of sending a mailer to all Housing Authority housing-voucher holders providing information and notice of a Housing Commission meeting on September 1 to solicit input and feedback that will inform recommendations from the Housing Commission to the City Council regarding the Santa Monica Resident Advisory Board."
There are more than 1,600 Housing Authority Program Participants that need to be notified of this very important Housing Commission meeting. The Santa Monica Housing Authority only emailed the notice of the Housing Commission meeting on September 1st to 907 Program Participants that they had email addresses for leaving out more than half of the clients.

The SMHA regularly sends communication both by email and snail mail - this issue should have never required an allocation of funds to send a letter to the Program Participants. Please vote in favor of approving the $1,500 to send out a mailer to the Program Participants.

Thank you. To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 16.E
08/23/22
7 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: M S <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: SUPPORT 16-E: funding for letter to RAB

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the city Council allocating up to $1500 to offset the cost of sending a mailer to all Housing Authority housing-voucher holders providing information and notice of the September 1 Housing Commission meeting do they may attend and gather critically important information regarding their living situation, rights, wellbeing, and to solicit input and feedback This is inarguably the most important governmental body meeting Santa Monica voucher holders have ever been invited to. For many, if not most, it is the only public meeting with a santa governmental body they will have been directly/individually invited to.

Failure to send out this mailer is the very definition of anti-democratic and discriminatory. Many of the poorest and most disable do not have email accounts or regular unfettered access to their email, due to disability or circumstances beyond their control.

Few in the abled and economically secure communities can truly grasp this.

We are all counting on the City Council to do the right thing Thank you for considering my input
Michael Louis
Item 16.E
08/23/22
8 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) From: oz
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; David White Subject: SUPPORT 16-E: funding for RAB letter
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:00:10 PM

EXTERNAL
This is to urge the Council to authorize the $1,500 to be used to send the Housing Commission letter to RAB members.

The letter must be sent out immediately in order to reach the clients of SMHA in time for the September 1, 2022 meeting of the Housing Commission.

Please note that you as the Council are put in the position where you have to authorize the funding for the letter because SMHA staff has been refusing to do their job and facilitate a meeting for the RAB itself.

Now the Housing Commission had to be creative and come up with a workaround to give RAB members an opportunity to participate in *a* meeting – a meeting of the Housing Commission – so that RAB members can give feedback on how they would like the RAB organized.

Additionally, have you ever wondered what the SMHA federal annual budget is? Why does the City have to provide the $1,500 to send out a letter that the SMHA (with its multimillion dollar per year federal budget) should have budgeted for in the first place, according to HUD guidelines?
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.”
source: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha/about/rab#:~:text=The%20role%20of%20the%20RABs,amendments%20or%20modifications%20to%20it.

The SMHA’s ongoing efforts to prevent a proper, functioning RAB from forming are similar to union busting – how embarrassing for a City that likes to call itself progressive.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 16.E
08/23/22
9 of 9 Item 16.E
08/23/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Written Comment (5323 : Discrectionary funds for Housing Authority mailer) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 23, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to accept Carolyn Charles' resignation from the Disabilities Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.

Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resignation Email

16.F
Packet Pg. 1326
1 Esterlina Lugo
To: Noe Mendoza; Elizabeth De La Barra
Cc: Aliya Buttar
Subject: RE: Thank you for the opportunity.

From: Alex Elliott <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 10:21 AM
To: Noe Mendoza <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Thank you for the opportunity.

From: Carolyn Charles <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 7:21 AM
To: Alex Elliott <[email protected]>
Subject: Thank you for the opportunity.

Alex,
I applied for a position on the disabilities commission while still a resident of Santa Monica. I was very pleased to be accepted to the commission. Over the last two years, I have been back and forth between Santa Monica and a long term job I am involved with in Salt Lake City. My move has become permanent, and with all the new stresses of my job, and the distance from my old home, I feel I cannot participate in the commission any more. I lived in Santa Monica for 26 years, and raised our 3 kids there. We still own a home in Sunset Park, and we may eventually move back. It's hard to know what the future holds. It will always be my home and I miss it.

The city of Santa Monica is blessed to have you as chair of the commission. You have a very thorough and gentle way of running the meetings with dedication. Thank you for the chance to be a part of it, even though meetings that were few and far between.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Charles

16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Resignation Email [Revision 1] (5325 : Disabilities Commission Resignation (2 mins))

Santa Monica City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
August 23, 2022