Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, September 13, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

5.H.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 2020 Biennial Notice_COI Review/Amendment_NEED TO SWAP OUT 2020 NOTICE WITH THE 2022 NOTICE (5316 : 2022 Biennial City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.I
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: AB 361 Findings Regarding Teleconference Meetings Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making the findings required by AB 361 to continue teleconference meetings of the City Council and City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces through October 24, 2022.

Discussion
AB 361 authorizes public agencies to conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without compliance with all of the Brown Act’s limitations on such meetings, while a state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic remains active and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

Initial reliance on AB 361 required the following: (1) there must be a proclaimed state of emergency; and (2) one of the following circumstances exist – (a) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (b) the legislative body has determined by majority vote that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees. See Government Code Section 54953(e)(1) (all citations herein are to the Government Code). Once the initial invocation of AB 361 is made, continued reliance on AB 361 for subsequent meetings requires the following: (1) either the proclaimed state of emergency remains active or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social

5.I
Packet Pg. 318
2 of 5
distancing; and (2) not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time under the AB 361 rules, and every 30 days thereafter, the legislative body, by majority vote, finds that it has reconsidered the circumstances of the emergency and at least one of the following circumstances exists – (a) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person or (b) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. See Section 54953(e)(3). Both of the conditions required to continue to rely on AB 361 are presently satisfied. The Governor’s State of Emergency Declaration, issued on March 4, 2020, and the City’s declaration of a local emergency issued March 13, 2020, as supplemented and modified through the 43rd Supplement, remain in place and have not been lifted. And, the most recent Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Order of the Health Officer, issued April 21, 2022, (“Health Officer Order” or “HOO”), continues to recommend social distancing as one measure to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

The Requirements of AB 361
If a public agency invokes AB 361, the notice and participation requirements for teleconferenced meetings are as follows: (1) each notice of the meeting and agenda must identify the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment by either a call-in option or an internet-based service option; (2) teleconferenced meetings must be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; (3) public comments cannot be required to be submitted in advance of the meeting (though this may remain an option); (4) the public must be able to attend the meeting via call-in option or internet-based service option; (5) the public must have an opportunity to address the legislative body directly and offer comment in real time via call-in option or internet-based service option; (6) if there is a disruption that prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting using the call-in option or internet-based service option, or if there is a disruption within the public agency’s control that prevents members of the public from offering public comments using the call-in option or internet5.I Packet Pg. 319
3 of 5
based service option, the legislative body shall take no further action on items appearing on the agenda until public access to the meeting via the call-in option or internet-based service option is restored; and (7) the legislative body shall allow a reasonable amount of time per agenda item to allow public members the opportunity to provide public comment, including time for members of the public to be recognized for the purpose of providing public comment. See Section 54953(e)(2).

The Current Findings Post-Winter Surge
While not experiencing the high case levels and positivity rates as seen during the height of the winter surge, the most recent Health Officer Order indicates that Los Angeles County continues to experience increases in COVID-19 cases and test positivity rates. As of August 25, 2022, LA County has confirmed 3,390,012 cases of COVID-19 within the County, with 3,860 new cases reported for August 24, 2022 alone, and has continued to advise that public health measures remain required to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The HOO continues to focus the public health response to COVID-19 in Los Angeles County, among other things, to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Members of Boards and Commissions previously voiced concern about being required to return to in-person meetings given that, as validated by the Health Officer Order, many people, including those with identified underlying medical conditions, unvaccinated older adults, people from ethnic and racial minority groups, remain at risk for severe illness from COVID-19 (more likely to be hospitalized, need intensive care, require a ventilator to help them breathe, or die).

Accordingly, on March 22, April 12, May 10, May 24, June 14, July 12, July 26, and August 23, 2022 the City Council adopted findings under AB 361 to allow Boards and Commissions to elect to continue meeting remotely. The findings proposed by the attached resolution will allow Boards and Commissions to continue to elect to meet remotely through October 24, 2022.

5.I
Packet Pg. 320
4 of 5
In light of AB 361, the continuing COVID-19 emergency, the continuing recommendations by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health of social distancing as one mechanism for preventing the spread of COVID-19, and the continued threats to health and safety posed by indoor public meetings with large attendance, staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed resolution making the findings required to continue to invoke AB 361. Doing so will allow City Council and City Board, Commission, and Task Force meetings to continue to occur by teleconference after September 24, 2022 (which is when the last adopted AB 361 resolution will expire) without compliance with the teleconferencing requirements set out in Section 54953(b)(3) that would otherwise apply.

The procedures that were established for City Council meetings when it held meetings remotely, providing for public attendance and comment through a call-in or internet-based service option, satisfy the requirements of AB 361. The City Clerk will work with City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to ensure that their meeting procedures for all meetings continue to similarly comply with the requirements of AB 361.

As indicated above, although the attached AB 361 Resolution authorizes all Boards and Commissions to continue to meet remotely, a Board or Commission can affirmatively decide to meet in person, just as the City Council decided for itself. In other words, for Boards and Commissions, the default will be remote meetings unless and until any decision to meet in person. As indicated above, the Council will need to make AB 361 findings anew every 30 days to permit this option to continue.

Fiscal Impacts
Budget for conduct of Council and City Board, Commission, and Task Force meetings is included in the FY 2022-23 budget.

5.I
Packet Pg. 321
5 of 5
Prepared By: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. RESO-AB361 Findings

5.I
Packet Pg. 322
1 City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY AB 361

TO PERMIT COUNCIL AND CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, AND TASK FORCE

MEETINGS TO CONTINUE TO BE CONDUCTED BY TELECONFERENCE WHILE THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY REMAINS IN PLACE
WHEREAS international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARS-CoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and announced that the federal government would make emergency funding available to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread of and addressing the effects of COVID-19; and

5.I.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: RESO-AB361 Findings (5340 : AB361 Teleconference Findings) 2 WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, (“Director of Emergency Services”) issued an Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Santa Monica Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (“Executive Order”) declaring a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and an effective response to COVID-19 and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (“Revised Executive Order”); and WHEREAS, the Governor’s March 4, 2020 declaration of a state of emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic remains in place; and
WHEREAS, the Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on March 13, 2020, has been ratified by the City Council on March 19, 2020, April 6, 2020, April 14, 2020, May 12, 2020, May 26, 2020, June 9, 2020, June 23, 2020, July 14, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 8, 2020, October 27, 2020, December 15, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 23, 2021 effective May 22, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 24, 2021, October 26, 2021, December 7, 2021, March 8, 2022 effective May 7, 2022, May 24, 2022, July 12, 2022, July 26, 2022, and August 23, 2022 with the result that the proclamation of a local emergency based on the COVID-19 pandemic remains in place; and
WHEREAS, throughout the emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LACDPH”) has issued a series of Health Officer Orders containing mandates and recommendations for keeping safe and preventing the spread of COVID-19; and

5.I.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: RESO-AB361 Findings (5340 : AB361 Teleconference Findings) 3 WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950-54963, allows for meetings of legislative bodies of a local agency, as those terms are defined in the Brown Act, to occur via teleconferencing subject to certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, and that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, see Government Code Section 54953(b)(3); and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill No. 361 (“AB 361”), which, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act when a legislative body of a local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency, as that term is defined, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 requires legislative bodies that hold teleconferenced meetings under its abbreviated teleconferencing procedures to give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; and

5.I.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: RESO-AB361 Findings (5340 : AB361 Teleconference Findings) 4 WHEREAS, AB 361 requires the legislative body to take no further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from requiring public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 prohibits the legislative body from closing the public comment period and the opportunity to register to provide public comment, until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, as specified; and WHEREAS, when there is a continuing state of emergency, or when state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, AB 361 requires a legislative body to make specified findings not later than 30 days after the first teleconferenced meeting pursuant to these provisions, and to make those findings every 30 days thereafter, in order to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, October 26, 2021, November 23, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 11, 2022, February 8, 2022, March 8, 2022, March 22, 2022, April 8, 2022, May 10, 2022, May 24, 2022, June 14, 2022, July 12, 2022, July 26, 2022, and August 23, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolutions, which made the findings required by AB 361 to allow the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task

5.I.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: RESO-AB361 Findings (5340 : AB361 Teleconference Findings) 5 Forces to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures, and authorized the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to conduct meetings under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures, without complying with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(e)(2); and
WHEREAS, in light of the continuing State and local declarations of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the most recent Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Order of the Health Officer, issued April 21, 2022, which continues to recommend social distancing as one measure to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and to protect the most vulnerable among us in indoor public settings, the City Council desires to again make the findings required by AB 361 to allow the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces to continue to meet under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the State and local declarations of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic remain in place, and that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability to meet safely in person.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds that local officials, namely, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, has continued to recommend measures to promote social distancing.

5.I.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: RESO-AB361 Findings (5340 : AB361 Teleconference Findings) 6 SECTION 3. As a result of the findings in Sections 1 through 2 above, the City Council and all City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces are authorized to conduct meetings under AB 361’s abbreviated teleconferencing procedures, without complying with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(e)(2).

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution 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 Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. 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

5.I.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: RESO-AB361 Findings (5340 : AB361 Teleconference Findings) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.J
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Adoption of Resolution Ratifying COVID-19 Emergency Proclamation and Supplements
Recommended Action
Approve resolution ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.

Executive Summary
In response to Federal, State, and County official and health agency guidance, and on behalf of the City, the City Manager declared a Local Emergency on March 13, 2020 due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Council initially ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency on March 19, 2020, and re-ratified on April 6, 2020, April 14, 2020, May 12, 2020, May 26, 2020, June 9, 2020, June 23, 2020, July 14, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 8, 2020, October 27, 2020, December 15, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 23, 2021 effective May 22, 2021, July 13, 2021, August 24, 2021, October 26, 2021, December 7, 2021, March 8, 2022, May 24, 2022, and July 12, 2022. As the City’s Director of Emergency Services, the City Manager has issued a total of 43 supplements to the Executive Order, with specific regulations and policies to protect the health and safety of Santa Monica residents, workers, businesses, and visitors.

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a proclamation that suspended and waived the 60-day time period in Government Code 8630 within which local governmental authorities must renew a local emergency for the duration of this statewide emergency. Nonetheless, it remains a best practice for the City Council to

5.J
Packet Pg. 329
2 of 4
ratify all supplements to the Executive Order as soon as practicable pursuant to SMMC section 2.16.100, which requires that “rules and regulations” issued by the Director of Emergency Services be “confirmed at the earliest practicable time by the City Council.” In addition, the City’s 43rd Supplement to its Local Emergency Order, which extended the supplements in place through December 31, 2022, requires the City Council to ratify the need for continuing the local emergency due to COVID-19 every 60 days.

Accordingly, this staff report offers for City Council consideration a resolution re-ratifying the Proclamation of Local Emergency as of September 23, 2022 (the date 60 days from when the last ratifying resolution expired) through November 22, 2022, as well as reratifying all of the previously ratified supplements that remain in effect.

Discussion
The novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) has spread across the globe since the first cases were reported in January 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that certain populations were at particular risk from COVID-19 and that widespread transmission would result in large numbers of people needing medical care at the same time, affecting our healthcare systems and other critical infrastructure. The World Health Organization (WHO) described the outbreak as a “public health emergency of international concern” on January 30, 2020.

In response, federal, state, and local authorities took action. On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway, and help the State prepare for the broader spread of COVID-19. That same day, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19. WHO upgraded COVID-19 to a pandemic on March 11, 2020.

On March 13, 2020, the City of Santa Monica issued a local emergency proclamation in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency (Exhibit A) and on March 14, 2020, a revised local emergency proclamation to comport with all digital signature requirements (Exhibit B). The proclamation enhanced the City’s ability to access federal and state dollars for COVID-19 response.

5.J
Packet Pg. 330
3 of 4
On March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a Health Officer Order for the Control of COVID-19 (“Health Officer Order”) that imposed various restrictions on gatherings, closure of certain businesses, and certain social distancing measures. Since March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has on multiple occasions amended and modified its Health Officer Order, and, as of the date of this Order, a Health Officer Order remains in effect, which requires various measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

The Director of Emergency Services has issued 43 separate supplements to the Executive Order of March 13, 2020. Most recently, on June 29, 2022, the City Council re-ratified the proclamation of local emergency made by the Director of Emergency Services, as well as the Fifth Revised First, Revised Fourth, Revised Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Second Revised Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, TwentyNinth, Thirty-First, Thirty-Second, Thirty-Third, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, Fortieth, Forty-First, FortySecond, and Forty-Third Supplements thereto; resolved that the local emergency shall be deemed to continue and exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council; and resolved that the supplements being ratified above shall, except for those portions of earlier supplements that were not extended by the Nineteenth, Thirty-First, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, and Thirty-Ninth Supplements, be operative and remain in effect through December 31, 2022 or the termination of the County Health Officer Order, whichever occurs first, or any later date expressly stated within the text of an individual supplement.

The emergency proclamation and its supplements were issued by the City Manager and Interim City Manager as the Director of Emergency Operations, under authority of Santa Monica Municipal Code 2.16.060. These orders must be ratified by the City Council as soon as practicable to remain in effect. Council has previously approved resolutions on March 19, 2020, April 6, 2020, April 14, 2020, May 12, 2020, May 26, 2020, June 9, 2020, June 23, 2020, July 14, 2020, July 28, 2020, September 8, 2020, October 27, 2020, December 15, 2020, January 26, 2021, March 23, 2021, May 25, 2021 (effective

5.J
Packet Pg. 331
4 of 4
as of May 22, 2021), July 13, 2021, August 24, 2021, October 12, 2021, December 7, 2021, March 8, 2022, May 24, 2022, and July 12, 2022, ratifying the earlier supplements.

Staff now request that Council adopt the attached resolution ratifying, as of September 13, 2022, the Executive Order, and the Fifth Revised First, Revised Fourth, Revised Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Second Revised Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, TwentyEighth, Twenty-Ninth, Thirty-First, Thirty-Second, Thirty-Third, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Ninth, Fortieth, Forty-First, FortySecond, and Forty-Third Supplemental Orders, issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and authorizing specified actions in response to that local emergency.

Fiscal Impacts
None.

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

A. EO Resolution
B. Ex A-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.13.2020
C. Ex B-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.14.2020
D. Ex C-Supplement 43-Local Emergency-COVID

5.J
Packet Pg. 332
1 City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL

CODE RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY

AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROCLAMATIONS THERETO
WHEREAS international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARS-CoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has a population of over 90,000 residents, is a major tourist destination, has two major hospitals and an airport within its jurisdiction, and is adjacent to and contiguous on three sides with the City of Los Angeles, resulting in high volumes of residents and visitors traveling within and across the City’s borders; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 2 WHEREAS, on, before, and after March 4, 2020, the City actively planned and implemented measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to prepare for any and all emergency actions in response to the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the City activated its Emergency Operations Center to support ongoing emergency actions in response to the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and announced that the federal government would make emergency funding available to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread of and addressing the effects of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, (“Director of Emergency Services”) proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and effectuate the City’s response to COVID-19, and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (the “Executive Order”); and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a Health Officer Order for the Control of COVID-19 (“Health Officer Order”) that imposed various restrictions on gatherings, closure of certain businesses, and certain social distancing measures, and
WHEREAS, since March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has on multiple occasions amended and modified its Health Officer Order, and,

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 3 as of the date of this Order, a Health Officer Order remains in effect, which requires various measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, since the Director of Emergency Services issued the Executive Order on March 13, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services has issued 43 separate supplements to the Executive Order; and
WHEREAS, on multiple occasions since the Director of Emergency Services issued the Executive Order on March 13, 2020, the City Council ratified the proclamation of local emergency made by the Director of Emergency Services; most recently, on July 12, 2022, the City Council ratified the proclamation of local emergency made by the Director of Emergency Services, as well as the Fifth Revised First, Revised Fourth, Revised Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Second Revised Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, TwentySeventh, Twenty-Eighth, Twenty-Ninth, Thirty-First, Thirty- Second, Thirty-Third, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth, ThirtyNinth, Fortieth, Forty-First, Forty-Second, and Forty-Third Supplements thereto; resolved that the local emergency shall be deemed to continue and exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council; and resolved that the supplements being ratified above shall, except for those portions of earlier supplements that were not extended by the Nineteenth, Thirty-First, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, ThirtySixth, Thirty- Seventh, and Thirty-Ninth Supplements, be operative and remain in effect through December 31, 2022, or the termination of the County Health Officer Order,

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 4 whichever occurs first, or any later date expressly stated within the text of an individual supplement; and
WHEREAS the findings included in each Executive Order and Supplement to the Executive Order referenced herein are included herein as if stated in full; and WHEREAS the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Department of Public Health, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health have issued public health recommendations that continue to include public health precautions in addition to vaccination to protect public health and prevent transmission of this communicable virus; and
WHEREAS, as stated in the Proclamation of Existence of a Local Emergency, the City Council finds that as of September 13, 2022, and continuing past that date, the above-described events are creating conditions of extreme peril and such conditions are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat; and
WHEREAS in the interest of public health and safety, as affected by the global, national, state, and local emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary to exercise the City Council’s authority pursuant to Section 2.16.060 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ratify the actions of the Director of Emergency Services related to the protection of life and property.

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

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 5 SECTION 1. The Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (“Executive Order”) (Exhibit A) is hereby ratified.

SECTION 2. The Revised Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (Exhibit B) is hereby ratified.

SECTION 3. The Fifth Revised First Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 4. The Revised Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 5. The Revised Fifth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 6. The Seventh Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 7. The Eighth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 6 SECTION 8. The Ninth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 9. The Twelfth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 10. The Thirteenth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 11. The Fifteenth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 12. The Sixteenth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 13. The Seventeenth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 14. The Third Revised Eighteenth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 7 SECTION 15. The Nineteenth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 16. The Second Revised Twenty-First Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 17. The Twenty-Second Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 18. The Twenty-Third Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 19. The Twenty-Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 20. The Twenty-Fifth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 21. The Twenty-Sixth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 8 SECTION 22. The Twenty-Seventh Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 23. The Twenty-Eighth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 24. The Twenty-Ninth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 25. The Thirty-First Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 26. The Thirty-Second Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 27. The Thirty-Third Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 28. The Corrected Thirty-Fourth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 9 SECTION 29. The Thirty-Fifth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 30. The Thirty-Sixth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 31. The Thirty-Seventh Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 32. The Thirty-Ninth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 33. The Fortieth Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 34. The Forty-First Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 35. The Forty-Second Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency is hereby ratified.

SECTION 36. The Forty-Third Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (Exhibit C) is hereby ratified.

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 10 SECTION 37. It is hereby proclaimed that a local emergency now exists, and as of September 13, 2022 existed, throughout the City. It is further proclaimed and ordered that during the existence of this local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by State law and by the ordinances and resolutions of this City.

SECTION 38. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, in his capacity as the Director of Emergency Services, to take all actions related to the protection of life and property that are reasonably necessary to respond to the local emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19.

SECTION 39. The local emergency shall be deemed to continue and exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council. As required by law, the City Council shall review the need to continue the state of emergency every 60 days until this resolution is terminated.

SECTION 40. The Fifth Revised First, Revised Fourth, Revised Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Second Revised Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, TwentyThird, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, Twenty- Ninth, Thirty-First, Thirty-Second, Thirty-Third, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Ninth, Fortieth, Forty-First, FortySecond, and Forty-Third Supplements to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency shall, except for those portions of earlier supplements that were not extended by the Nineteenth,

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 11 Thirty-First, Corrected Thirty- Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, ThirtyNinth, Forty-Second, and Forty-Third Supplements shall remain in effect until December 31, 2022 or the termination of the County Health Officer Order, whichever occurs first, or any later date expressly stated within the text of an individual Supplement, at which time they shall automatically expire unless earlier extended or expressly superseded by an action of the City Council or by a further Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services or Supplement thereto.

SECTION 41. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution, the Executive Order, or any Supplement or Revised Supplement to the Executive Order ratified herein 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 Resolution, the Executive Order, or any Supplement or Revised or Corrected Supplement to the Executive Order. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution, the Executive Order, and any Supplement or Revised or Corrected Supplement to the Executive Order and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Resolution, the Executive Order, or any Supplement or Revised or Corrected Supplement to the Executive Order would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. //
//
//

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 12 SECTION 42. 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

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: EO Resolution (5347 : Covid Proclamation)

PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
(by the Director of Emergency Services)

AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY WHEREAS, Section 2.16.060 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City of Santa Monica is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity and the City Council is not in session, subject to ratification by the City Council within seven days; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Santa Monica does hereby find:

That international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARSCoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and
That while the complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not yet fully understood, reported symptoms and illnesses from COVID-19 range from mild to severe, including fever, coughing, shortness of breath, and illnesses resulting in death; and That the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that certain populations face elevated risk and widespread transmission of COVID-19 would translate into large numbers of people needing medical care at the same time and other critical infrastructure may also be affected; and
That, on January 30, 2020, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern”; and
That, on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency to aid the nation’s healthcare community in responding to COVID-19; and
That, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19; and That, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
That, on March 11, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic; and

5.J.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Ex A-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.13.2020 (5347 : Covid Proclamation) That, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and that the federal government would make $50 billion in emergency funding to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread of and addressing the effects of COVID-19; and
That, as of March 13, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health reported 40 confirmed cases of COVID-19 within Los Angeles County, including six cases identified as likely due to community transmission; and That the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has a population of over 90,000 residents, is a major tourist destination, has two major hospitals and an airport within its jurisdiction, is a significant destination for business travel, and is adjacent to and contiguous on three sides with the City of Los Angeles, resulting in high volumes of residents and visitors traveling within and across the City’s borders; and
That, on or before March 4, 2020, the City actively planned and implemented measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to prepare for any and all emergency actions in response to the spread of COVID-19; and
That, on March 12, 2020, the City activated its Emergency Operations Center to support ongoing emergency actions in response to the spread of COVID-19; and That the City intends to continue to take bold and aggressive actions to protect the public health and safety during this local, state, and national public health emergency; and That the above described events are creating conditions of extreme peril and such conditions are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat; and That the City Council of the City of Santa Monica is not in session and cannot immediately be called into session.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED that a local emergency now exists throughout the City;
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of the City shall be as prescribed by federal and state law, and by City ordinances and resolutions of this City.

ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2020.

By: _________________________

RICK COLE
City Manager
Director of Emergency Services

5.J.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Ex A-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.13.2020 (5347 : Covid Proclamation) ATTEST:
___________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN
City Clerk
This proclamation has been issued in accordance with applicable law and is in effect and carries the force of law until March 20, 2020, on which date it expires unless confirmed and ratified by the City Council.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________

LANE DILG
City Attorney

5.J.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Ex A-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.13.2020 (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 1 REVISED PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY (by the Director of Emergency Services)

AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OF THE

That international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARSCoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and
That while the complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not yet fully understood, reported symptoms and illnesses from COVID-19 range from mild to severe, including fever, coughing, shortness of breath, and illnesses resulting in death; and That the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that certain populations face elevated risk and widespread transmission of COVID-19 would translate into large numbers of people needing medical care at the same time and other critical infrastructure may also be affected; and
That, on January 30, 2020, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern”; and
That, on January 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency to aid the nation’s healthcare community in responding to COVID-19; and
Rick Cole
City Manager
Office of the City Manager
1685 Main Street
PO Box 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CD47410-A416-4C9C-A909-742CEE6C0060

5.J.c
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Ex B-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.14.2020 (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 2 That, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19; and That, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
That, on March 11, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic; and
That, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and that the federal government would make $50 billion in emergency funding to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread of and addressing the effects of COVID-19; and
That, as of March 13, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health reported 40 confirmed cases of COVID-19 within Los Angeles County, including six cases identified as likely due to community transmission; and That the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has a population of over 90,000 residents, is a major tourist destination, has two major hospitals and an airport within its jurisdiction, is a significant destination for business travel, and is adjacent to and contiguous on three sides with the City of Los Angeles, resulting in high volumes of residents and visitors traveling within and across the City’s borders; and
That, on or before March 4, 2020, the City actively planned and implemented measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to prepare for any and all emergency actions in response to the spread of COVID-19; and
That, on March 12, 2020, the City activated its Emergency Operations Center to support ongoing emergency actions in response to the spread of COVID-19; and That the City intends to continue to take bold and aggressive actions to protect the public health and safety during this local, state, and national public health emergency; and That the above described events are creating conditions of extreme peril and such conditions are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, requiring the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat; and That, on March 13, 2020, in my capacity as Director of Emergency Services, I issued a proclamation of local emergency to declare the existence of a local emergency; and That this revised proclamation is issued as an additional precaution and out of an abundance of caution in accordance with laws related to use of digital signatures; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CD47410-A416-4C9C-A909-742CEE6C0060

5.J.c
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Ex B-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.14.2020 (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 3 That the City Council of the City of Santa Monica is not in session and cannot immediately be called into session.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED and restated that a local emergency and now exists throughout the City;
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of the City shall be as prescribed by federal and state law, and by City ordinances and resolutions of this City.

ADOPTED this 14th day of March 2020.

By: _____________________________

RICK COLE
City Manager
Director of Emergency Services
ATTEST:
___________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________

LANE DILG
City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CD47410-A416-4C9C-A909-742CEE6C0060

5.J.c
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Ex B-Proclamation-Local Emergency-COVID 03.14.2020 (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 1 Office of the City Manager

FORTY-THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL

EMERGENCY
WHEREAS international, national, state, and local health and governmental authorities are responding to an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus named “SARS-CoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “coronavirus disease 2019,” abbreviated COVID-19, (“COVID-19”); and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Health declared a local emergency and local public health emergency to aid the regional healthcare and governmental community in responding to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for broader spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States of America declared a national emergency and announced that the federal government would make emergency funding available to assist state and local governments in preventing the spread of and addressing the effects of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager, in his role as the Director of Emergency Services, (“Director of Emergency Services”) proclaimed the existence of a local emergency pursuant to Chapter 2.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure the availability of mutual aid and an effective the City’s response to COVID-19 and this local emergency was restated on March 14, 2020, through a revised declaration of local emergency to ensure compliance with all digital signature requirements (the “Executive Order”); and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a Health Officer Order for the Control of COVID-19 (“Health Officer Order”) that imposed various restrictions on gatherings, closure of certain businesses, and certain social distancing measures, and
WHEREAS, since March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has on multiple occasions amended and modified its Health Officer Order, and, as of the date of this Order, a Health Officer Order remains in effect, which requires various measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BD15801-AC89-4CC7-85E1-46A08C40C804

5.J.d
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Ex C-Supplement 43-Local Emergency-COVID (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 2 WHEREAS, since the Director of Emergency Services issued the Executive Order on March 13, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services has issued 42 separate supplements to the Executive Order; and
WHEREAS, on multiple occasions since the Director of Emergency Services issued the Executive Order on March 13, 2020, the City Council ratified the proclamation of local emergency made by the Director of Emergency Services; most recently, effective as of May 7, 2022, the City Council ratified the proclamation of local emergency made by the Director of Emergency Services, as well as the Fifth Revised First, Revised Fourth, Revised Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Second Revised Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, Twenty-Ninth, Thirty-First, Thirty-Second, Thirty-Third, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, ThirtySeventh, Thirty-Ninth, Fortieth, Forty-First, and Forty-Second Supplements thereto; resolved that the local emergency shall be deemed to continue and exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council; and resolved that the supplements being ratified above shall, except for those portions of earlier supplements that were not extended by the Nineteenth, Thirty-First, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Ninth, and FortySecond Supplements, be operative and remain in effect through June 30, 2022, or any later date expressly stated within the text of an individual supplement; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, the Director of Emergency Services issued a FortySecond Supplement to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency (the “Forty-Second Supplement”), which, among other things, amended and restated COVID-19 tenant protections, including eviction protections for evictions based on no-fault reasons, nuisance or unauthorized occupants or pets, and denial of entry; remedies for violations of eviction protections; protections related to tenant harassment; eviction reporting requirements for landlords; and a prohibition on deception by landlords in connection with these rights and obligations; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, Los Angeles County adopted the Resolution Further Amending and Restating the County of Los Angeles COVID-19 Tenant Protections, which states that it applies to incorporated cities within the County but does not preclude an incorporated city within the County from imposing greater protections; and which, among other things, implements an eviction moratorium from February 1, 2022 through May 31, 2022 for evictions based on specified grounds, including no-fault eviction reasons except for qualified owner moveins, nuisance or unauthorized occupants or pets, and denying entry to the landlord; and which implements an eviction moratorium from June 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 for evictions based on specified grounds, including nonpayment of rent for qualified households, no-fault reasons except for certain owner move-ins, and nuisance or unauthorized occupants or pets; and WHEREAS, as of June 1, 2022, the eviction moratorium implemented by Los Angeles County does not apply to evictions based on denial of entry of the landlord; and tenants and landlords may take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19 during an entry; and existing local and state law continue to regulate landlord entries; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BD15801-AC89-4CC7-85E1-46A08C40C804

5.J.d
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Ex C-Supplement 43-Local Emergency-COVID (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 3 WHEREAS, for the reasons stated in the recitals to the Forty-Second Supplement, which are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, the City’s ability to effectively enforce COVID-19 tenant protections and monitor how many evictions and endeavors to evict occur in Santa Monica is critical to protect the public health and safety during this local emergency; however, in alignment with the County’s eviction protections, it is no longer warranted to apply the eviction moratorium to evictions based on denial of entry of the landlord, particularly where tenants and landlords may take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19 during an entry and where existing local and state law continue to regulate landlord entries; and
WHEREAS, the City has an important government interest in maintaining a thriving business community and protecting the health, safety, and economic welfare of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, as of June 28, 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has confirmed 3,105,867 cases of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County and has continued to advise that public health measures remain required to prevent the further spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, California Government Code 8634 empowers the City to promulgate orders and regulations necessary to provide for the protection of life and property during a local emergency, and
WHEREAS, in the interest of public health and safety, as affected by the emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19, it is necessary to exercise my authority pursuant to Section

2.16.060 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to issue this regulation related to the protection of life and property.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, David White, the Director of Emergency Services for the City of Santa Monica, do hereby issue the following order to become effective immediately, subject to ratification as soon as practicable by the City Council.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

A. Extension of Emergency Supplements

1. Subject to the exceptions stated in Section 2 of this Order; Section 2 of the Nineteenth Supplement issued June 29, 2020; Sections 6 and 7 of the Thirty-First Supplement issued December 22, 2020; Sections 8 through 11 of the Corrected Thirty-Fourth Supplement issued March 24, 2021; Sections 2 and 3 of the Thirty-Fifth Supplement issued April 27, 2021; Sections 19 and 20 of the Thirty-Sixth Supplement issued May 18, 2021; Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Thirty-Seventh Supplement issued June 24, 2021; Section 2 of the Thirty-Ninth Supplement issued July 14, 2021; and Sections 2 and 4 of the Forty-Second Supplement issued on January 27, 2022, the Fifth Revised First, Revised Fourth, Revised Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Third Revised Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Second Revised Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BD15801-AC89-4CC7-85E1-46A08C40C804

5.J.d
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Ex C-Supplement 43-Local Emergency-COVID (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 4 Twenty-Sixth, Twenty-Seventh, Twenty-Eighth, Twenty-Ninth, Thirty-First, ThirtySecond, Thirty-Third, Corrected Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, ThirtySeventh, Thirty-Ninth, Fortieth, Forty-First, and Forty-Second Supplements to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency shall be extended to be operative and remain in effect until, whichever occurs earlier, the termination of the County Health Officer Order, including any amendments and successors thereto, or December 31, 2022, provided that City Council ratifies the need for continuing the local emergency due to COVID19 every 60 days. At that time, the foregoing Supplements to the Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency shall automatically expire unless earlier extended or expressly superseded by an action of the City Council or by a further Executive Order of the Director of Emergency Services or Supplement thereto.

2. Section 5(e) of the Forty-Second Supplement issued on January 27, 2022, which provides, subject to specified exceptions, that a residential tenant shall not be evicted on the ground that such tenant denied entry to the landlord into the rental unit, is not extended and shall have no force and effect as of the effective date of this Order.

B. General Provisions

3. This Order shall take effect immediately and, unless extended or expressly superseded by a duly enacted Ordinance of the City Council or by a further Order by the Director of Emergency Services, this Order shall remain in effect until, whichever occurs earlier, the termination of the County Health Officer Order, including any amendments and successors thereto, or December 31, 2022, provided that City Council ratifies the need for continuing the local emergency due to COVID-19 every 60 days.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BD15801-AC89-4CC7-85E1-46A08C40C804

5.J.d
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Ex C-Supplement 43-Local Emergency-COVID (5347 : Covid Proclamation) 5 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Order 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 Order. The City Manager hereby declares that he would have issued this Order, the Executive Order, and any Supplement or Revised or Corrected Supplement to the Executive Order, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Order, the Executive Order, and any Supplement or Revised or Corrected Supplement to the Executive Order not declared invalid or unconstitutional, without regard to whether any portion of this Order, the Executive Order, or any Supplement or Revised or Corrected Supplement to the Executive Order would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

ADOPTED this 29th day of June 2022.

By: _________________________

DAVID WHITE
City Manager
Director of Emergency Services
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ______________________

DENISE ANDERSON-WARREN DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Clerk City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BD15801-AC89-4CC7-85E1-46A08C40C804

5.J.d
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Ex C-Supplement 43-Local Emergency-COVID (5347 : Covid Proclamation) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 5.K
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Accept Funding from Southern California Grantmakers for the City Manager David White to participate in a Study Trip on Houston’s Approach to Addressing Homelessness
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize acceptance of payment from Southern California Grantmakers for the City Manager to travel to Houston, Texas, for a study trip on Houston’s approach to addressing homelessness and determine that the City Manager will make use of the payment to reimburse the City for costs associated with the trip.

Summary
Santa Monica’s City Manager, along with other City and County Officials from Los Angeles County, have been invited by Southern California Grantmakers to participate in a trip to the City of Houston to study how they are addressing homelessness. Southern California Grantmakers has offered to cover the cost of travel for this trip. By authorizing acceptance of the payment and determining the City Manager will make use of the payment, in accordance with Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) requirements, the City Manager will be able to attend the study trip to Houston without the City having to incur costs.

Background
Upon adoption of the FY 2022-2023 biennial budget, the City Council adopted three community priorities:

5.K
Packet Pg. 356
2 of 4
• Clean and Safe Santa Monica: Create an atmosphere marked by clean and safe spaces and neighborhoods.
• Addressing Homelessness: Prevent housed Santa Monicans from becoming homeless; address the behavioral health needs of vulnerable individuals; and advocate for regional capacity to address homelessness. • Equitable and Inclusive Economic Recovery: Cultivate equitable and inclusive economic opportunity and recovery, including access for all community members to educational, employment, and economic resources and opportunities, and create a community where differences in life outcomes cannot be predicted by race, class, gender, disability or other identities.

As part of the City’s efforts to address homelessness, the City has implemented a Four Pillar Strategy that includes the following:
• Prevent housed Santa Monicans from becoming homeless and increase the supply of affordable housing;
• Address the behavioral health needs of vulnerable residents; • Maintain equitable access to safe, fun, and healthy open spaces; and • Strengthen regional capacity to address homelessness.

Because regional coordination and collaboration is an important component of the City’s Four Pillar Strategy, the City Manager desires to join the Chief Executive Officer of Los Angeles County along with a number of City Managers from Los Angeles County on a study trip to Houston, Texas, to learn about their Continuum of Care’s approach to intergovernmental collaboration to address homelessness. This trip will occur from September 14 through September 16, 2022. The Weingart and Hilton Foundations will underwrite the costs of this trip through their Fiscal Agent, Southern California Grantmakers. During this study trip, there will be meetings with senior representatives from the City of Houston, leadership of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, and key civic leaders to better understand how they have established an enabling political and policy environment for such collaboration.

5.K
Packet Pg. 357
3 of 4
Discussion
The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted regulations regulating gifts to public officials for travel. FPPC Regulation 18905.1 provides for an exception for certain travel payments made directly to the public agency for an official agency purpose in lieu of using City funds. To qualify for the exception set forth in Regulation 18905.1, the payment must be made directly to the City and used for “official agency business”. For purposes of the Regulation, when payment is made for the travel expenses of an official for the purpose of receiving training directly related to the official’s job duties and the payment is provided by an organization that commonly provides such training, it is considered “official agency business”. The payment cannot provide any personal benefit to the official making use of the travel, the duration of the travel is limited to that necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the travel is provided.

Regulation 18905.1 requires the public agency to determine which employee will be using the payment, and to report the payment to the FPPC.

The proposed payment for travel would be used solely for purposes of the City Manager’s travel to Houston for the study trip in lieu of using City funds. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council authorize acceptance of the payment from Southern California Grantmakers and determine that the City Manager will use the funds for travel to Houston for the study trip in accordance with the requirements set forth in Regulation 18905.1.

Fiscal Impacts
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action as the City will be fully reimbursed for the costs associated with the study trip.

5.K
Packet Pg. 358
4 of 4
Prepared By: Christopher Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Approved Forwarded to Council

5.K
Packet Pg. 359
1 June 21, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Himmelrich at 6:09 p.m., on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Sue Himmelrich
Mayor Pro Tem Kristin McCowan
Councilmember Phil Brock
Councilmember Gleam Davis
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Oscar de la Torre
Councilmember Christine Parra
Also Present: City Manager David White
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 6:09 p.m., with all members present. Councilmember Brock led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
There was nothing to report on Council travel.

STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

COUNCIL RULES

8.A. Adoption of Resolution No. 11427 (CCS) entitled “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE

FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 11418 (CCS)”, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Provide direction to staff regarding changing the time limit(s) for public comment;

2. Provide direction to staff regarding order for hearing both in-person and remote public comment and the discontinuation of the time donation to another speaker policy upon implementation of hybrid meetings;

3. Provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of Boards and Commissions to meet quarterly and remotely until the end of

5.L
Packet Pg. 360 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 June 21, 2022
calendar year 2022 or until the end of the 1st quarter of 2023;

4. Implement hybrid City Council meetings beginning with the first regular Council meeting in September, pending budget approval of staffing; and

5. Adopt the attached proposed resolution amending the City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure.

Member of the public Denise Barton, spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: why is the General public comment separated from the Agenda public comment; does the public get to split up their six minutes more than the two minutes; why is general public comment ahead of public comment on the agenda; what are the legal items that would need to be heard separately as a public hearing; will members of the public have an opportunity to speak after the presentation is made from staff; if someone starts talking, are we going to be able to just stop them if they veer off on the a different item; and, can we give people the option to either speak at the beginning of the item, or allow them to speak later when the item is called.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
move the general public comment up above the public comment for Closed session, special agenda items and consent calendar; hear the non-public speakers first when we go to hybrid meetings; okay to move general public input at the beginning with closed session, special agenda, and consent, but leave the public comment to be heard with the item; to make the meetings more efficient, we need to move the public comment to the beginning of the meeting, especially once we go hybrid; on a trial basis, we need to try something new, and allowing public input earlier in the meeting would be more efficient, and could possibly increase public interaction; if we give people too many options, it becomes confusing; boards and commissions should make their own choices about how often they should meet; and, time donation should remain for people who are in-person Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to direct staff to move General public comment on non-agenda items to the beginning of the meeting, then receive public comment for Closed Session, Special Meeting, and Consent items. After Closed Session, hear public comment on items on the agenda, except those that legally require a public hearing, for a trial period until December 31st.

Councilmember de la Torre proposed an amendment to continue to allow donation of time for in-person meetings. The motion was considered friendly by the maker and seconder.

5.L
Packet Pg. 361 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 June 21, 2022
The motion, as amended was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Brock
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of Boards and Commissions to meet quarterly and remotely until the end of the calendar year 2022 or until the end of the 1st quarter of 2023.

Councilmember Brock proposed an amendment to only continue with meeting remotely through the end of 2022, then Council can come back and revisit. The amendment was considered friendly by the maker and seconder.

The motion, as amended was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember, that all Charter commissions shall meet once a month, that other commissions may decide how frequently they’ll meet, but no more than once a month, and Council shall revisit at the end of the year. It was determined that this motion was not needed.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to implement hybrid City Council meetings beginning with the first regular meeting in September, pending budget approval of staffing. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Davis, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Davis, to adopt the resolution, as amended, amending the City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure.

5.L
Packet Pg. 362 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 June 21, 2022
The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Brock
ABSENT: None
HOUSING ELEMENT 8.B. Housing Element Draft Redline Revisions, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to transmit draft redline revisions to the adopted 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment.

Member of the public Denise Barton and the Mayor read the Housing Commissions comments into the public record on the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: if we put a microscope on Nielsen Way, what is the potential maximum height limit on our publicly owned land for affordable housing; on the private land on Main Street, what would be the maximum, with density bonus; what about on Wilshire Blvd, what is the zoning; if these projects are submitted, and everything is in order, would that not be subject to City Council review, but instead would only be subject to Planning department review; is there anticipation that we could get more 100% affordable housing on city land; if we are looking at this from a residence view, in 2030, are they looking at a more dense city; are “out of compliance” consequences a reality or only an enforcement threat; is there any movement amongst other cities in the state who have pledge to fight the Department of Housing Community Development’s (HCD) requirements; have there been any cities that have been successful fighting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation; would they not approve our 11,000, even though they are requiring 13,000; is the state of California still not providing any funding to help with building; does the buffer help protect us; what is the maximum height on Main Street for the parking lots; if affordable housing was built there, would the parking have to be replaced, and what happens to that revenue; what happens to traffic and parking, once this additional housing is completed; will all of these projects come before the City Council for approval, where the infrastructure, traffic, and parking issues could be addressed; why aren’t there more of the proposed affordable units being placed around the city, instead of placing the largest concentration in the Pico neighborhood; is there a document that shows where there is currently affordable housing, and what are the impacts; what is the impact of cost and gentrification as this plan gets implemented; what city land do we have large enough in the city that can make up the recommended 1,800 units that

5.L
Packet Pg. 363 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 June 21, 2022
is currently being proposed at Bergamot; has there been any idea on what could be used at the old Heinz building, and could that be used to build affordable housing; have there been any conversations about the drought, and the impact of building the required housing; is there a reason the city is not pushing to have more TORCA type programs to allow residents homeownership; for zoning, can we protect greenspace and build in those amenities; what is some of the upzoning for housing potential in areas that have not accommodated housing in the past; at 4th & 5th and Arizona, with the number of proposed units, will there still be space for green space, first floor leases, and other amenities; has anyone looked at using the Big Blue Bus location as a city site to build housing instead of building at Bergamot; what would be the process for a city site to be used for housing, would that require the surplus act in any way; regardless of if we have water or not, won’t the people seeking housing, just move to other cities looking for housing; the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being built north of Montana are not being placed on the rental unit list, are they; would it be so terrible to have one or two triplexes built in the high resource areas (R1); why not just get rid of minimum parking requirements in the city; have we done a feasibility study that shows, if we use the 5/5/5 configuration, that we will not be creating a constraint on building housing using state density bonus law; is there any reason not to grant non-profits as first refusal rights all over the city; where are the suitable sites located throughout the city; if this draft housing element is submitted to HCD, and they give a conditional approval, is there any sense if we will be able to get an extension; what can we expect to happen in the next six months, if we approve this tonight; how many CA cities are out of compliance with the HCD, and are any of the cities formulating and fighting back.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to:
residents want to know why isn’t the city fighting HCDs RHNA allocation; concern that the largest part of the proposed 1880 units being built are in the Bergamot, Pico neighborhood; more density on residential, creates more gentrification; a contradiction that we have a water shortage statewide, but the state is requiring cities build all of this additional housing; find an opportunity to reboot the TORCA plan to allow residents to build generational wealth; it’s upsetting to hear of affordable housing being built in Bergamot instead of having it built where the maintenance warehouse currently is; concerns about having no parking for family units; look at other areas for housing to create a quality of life for people who can’t afford to live here, when looking at height, FAR, etc.; look at TORCA options as a feasible option for some older private owned buildings; what is being proposed is not going to work; we have our own good plan, that would work and create affordable housing; this feels like an intellectual exercise; appalled by the way the state is forcing us to do this, it’s just wrong; important to incorporate green space in this plan; maybe consider a rent-to-own option; not having parking does not decrease rent;

5.L
Packet Pg. 364 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 June 21, 2022
some of the residents want to challenge HCD, because it will change the essence of what is Santa Monica; regardless to what we decide tonight, a lot of this is theoretical; and, we may look back four years from now, and realize that HCD is not able to enforce it.

Motion by Mayor Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember Brock, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion failed by the following vote:

AYES: Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis, voted no because she felt the one area that has not crossed the bar has been affirmatively furthering fair housing. Need to look at ways in which we can produce more traditional multi-family housing in R1 zones. Direction to come back with a plan to rezone the R1s in some compacity or provide a 100% affordable housing overlay that would apply to R1 zones that would give us the possibility to building multi-family housing in the existing R1 zones. That would get us over the hump in terms of affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Councilmember Parra, voted to no, because her concern is the Bergamot being selected.

Councilmember Brock, voted no because of concern that while we approve the Housing element, simultaneously, we should do our best to fight the unfairness of this, and we need to stand up for the residents of our staff.

We should do our best to join other cities to reconsider what is being put on our city.

Councilmember de la Torre, voted no because he thinks there’s an opportunity here to create a robust program to create a homeownership program, discuss resident displacement, and create more moderate rate housing to help alleviate gentrification. Would like to see more ideas on creating a Pico Neighborhood Zoning District planning.

Councilmember Negrete, voted no because this plan does not address the fair housing issue. It doesn’t address equity, diversity and inclusion issues that exist. We need to look at open court and less high, density units for families. Concerned about displacement of residents. Also, there has not been enough time to digest all that is being presented, with the expectation for Council to just approve this because of the pressure from HCD.

Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Mayor Himmelrich, to reconsider the main motion.

5.L
Packet Pg. 365 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 June 21, 2022
The motion to reconsider was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers de la Torre, Brock, Negrete, Davis, Parra, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to transmit draft redline revisions to the adopted 6th Cycle (2021- 2029) Housing Element Update to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment, with on-going work on concerns expressed by Council. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Parra, Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Mayor Himmelrich
NOES: Councilmember Davis
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Davis stated her no vote because she continues to have concerns that this is not a compliance draft, simply because it’s deficient in the area of affirming furthering fair housing, and concerns of the constraints which is political will relating to minimum parking requirements, implementation of state density bonus law, and other matters previously stated that need to be addressed.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 10:32p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
City Clerk Mayor

5.L
Packet Pg. 366 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 21, 2022 6:00 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Housing Authority
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 11
To: Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human Services
Subject: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board review and comment on the current and alternative approaches to achieving Resident Advisory Board input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans, and direct the City Manager to return to City Council following the November 2022 election with actions necessary to implement direction received from City Council or further discussion regarding the alternatives presented, as warranted.

Summary
Each year, the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) must submit an Annual Plan and any updates to the Administrative Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 75 days before the beginning of July-June fiscal year.

Every five years, the SMHA must also submit to HUD a 5-Year Plan within the same deadline. Together, the 5-year Plan, Annual Plan, and Administrative Plan represent the SMHA Plan (collectively referred to as the Plans). Prior to submission of the Plans, federal regulations require that the SMHA’s Resident Advisory Board (RAB) have an opportunity to provide input on the proposed Plans.

Santa Monica’s RAB consists of all 1,300+ voucher holders whose Housing Choice Vouchers are administered by the SMHA. The current process involves notifying all members of the RAB and inviting direct input on proposed Plans via email/mail/phone.

RAB members also have an opportunity to comment annually during a Housing Commission and Housing Authority Board meeting when the SMHA Plans are

7.A
Packet Pg. 367
2 of 11
agendized for review and approval. In April 2022, the Housing Authority Board asked staff to present alternative approaches to the RAB input process for consideration. The following report provides background information, key regulations, current compliant practice, and three alternatives, and seeks direction on any desired revisions to the RAB process.

Background
At its April 12, 2022, meeting, the Housing Authority Board directed staff to return with a discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate RAB input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans. The following report is provided in response to the Housing Authority Board’s direction.

Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing
“The role of a resident council is to improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to create a positive living environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 964 for more information on tenant participation in public housing.) Given the substantial role a Public Housing Authority (PHA) may play in the life of its public housing residents, federal regulations allow tenants residing in public housing to create resident councils. Many PHAs own and operate public housing and therefore serve as the property owner to the tenants who reside in such housing, as well as the subsidy provider that ensures each tenant’s portion of the rent is affordable. However, other PHAs, such as the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA), do not own or operate public housing and only administer rental-housing voucher programs, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program (commonly known as Section 8), which allow tenants to obtain affordable housing in the broader private housing market. Tenants with vouchers reside in hundreds of privately owned properties located throughout cities and PHAs do not have a role in how such properties are managed and operated, except for ensuring that federal Housing Quality Standards are met through periodic inspections.

Different Ways to Structure Resident Involvement

7.A
Packet Pg. 368
3 of 11
PHAs that own and operate public housing may have a resident (tenant) council for each specific public housing property or may have a jurisdiction-wide resident council to represent tenants of several public housing properties within a PHA’s jurisdiction. Since the SMHA does not own or operate public housing, it is referred to as ‘voucher-only’ PHA, and regulations regarding resident councils are not applicable to the SMHA.

While voucher-only PHAs do not have resident councils, they must have a Resident Advisory Board to allow an opportunity for input into the PHA plan. (See 24 CFR 903 for more information on PHA Plans.)
Key federal regulations regarding the role of a RAB are as follows (24 CFR 903.13):
• “The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.” • “The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA.” • “Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation.”
• “The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in §903.21 of this title.” The purpose of the RAB is to provide input to SMHA staff regarding the PHA Plan for consideration prior to staff presenting recommendations to the Housing Authority Board,

7.A
Packet Pg. 369
4 of 11
the governing body of the Housing Authority. Typically, the SMHA receives input from only a few voucher program participants, if any, although it is common to receives input from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, based on their experiences in representing voucher-program participants.

Public Housing Authority Plan
The PHA Plan is a comprehensive guide to PHAs goals and objectives, as well as operational policies implementing the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. There are two initial components to the PHA Plan - the 5-Year Plan and the Annual Plan. The 5-Year Plan must be approved once every fifth fiscal year, and the Annual Plan, every year, 75 days before the start of the fiscal year.

Since the SMHA is a ‘voucher-only PHA’ and uses a three-page streamlined Annual Plan form per federal requirements, the complete policies and procedures for administering the HCV program are detailed within 17 chapters of the SMHAs Administrative Plan, the third component of the PHA Plan. The HCV program is a highly regulated federal program (see Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 982) involving these aspects:
1) waitlist administration
2) initial program eligibility
3) annual recertification
4) Housing Quality Standards and periodic inspections
5) document verification hierarchy
6) annual income calculations
7) subsidy limits
8) appeals
9) terminations
10) monthly and annual reporting

7.A
Packet Pg. 370
5 of 11
Therefore, PHAs have limited discretion in forming local policies and procedures.

Subsequently, the SMHA’s Administrative Plan includes a combination of federally established regulations and a few local, discretionary approaches to administering the HCV program where allowed. For example, PHAs must adhere to the federal regulations regarding admittance to the program, ongoing eligibility, periodic inspections, and maximum subsidy limits, but can exercise local discretion in prioritizing certain applicant groups, allocating vouchers to specific properties (known as projectbased vouchers), and selecting models to comply with maximum subsidy amounts.

Evolution of SM RAB Approaches
Given that the SMHA does not own or operate any publicly owned housing, there are no resident (tenant) councils that comply with the tenant-participation regulations under the tenant-based assistance program. Therefore, voucher-only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process.

Federal regulations and HUD guidance provide local PHAs broad discretion in the formation of the RAB, as follows: “Section 8-only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process. Participation in a RAB is limited to residents that are assisted under federally assisted public housing and the Section 8 tenant-based program.” Also:
“PHAs have discretion in determining the method of appointment of RABs, as long as a PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA.”
Prior to 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized the Housing Commission as representing the function of a RAB due to its inclusion of two voucher program participants, monthly meetings, annual review and input to the PHA plan, and role as an advisory body to the City Council, which periodically convenes as the governing body of the SMHA, known as the Housing Authority Board.

In early 2020, the SMHA staff selected a seven-member RAB, consistent with HUD written guidance that personal appeals are a strategy that may be more likely to obtain commitments from program participants to serve on the RAB.

7.A
Packet Pg. 371
6 of 11
In March 2021, the SMHA expanded the RAB to include all 1,300+ Section 8 program participants (i.e., HCV participants). (Note that the SMHA administers other voucher programs, and those participants are included in all noticing of opportunities to comment on the SMHA plans but are not considered part of the RAB.) The decision to expand the RAB was made after discussion with the local HUD field office about RAB models used by other housing authorities. Another consideration was concern from some community members that a RAB selected by staff was not transparent. Among two general models, one model limits the RAB to a closed group of HCV participant representatives and the other model includes all HCV participants. SMHA currently uses the more inclusive option, which allows for participation by all HCV participants.

Discussion
Current RAB approach and Input Opportunities
The RAB currently includes all 1,300+ participants in the HCV program and is consulted annually regarding the SMHA plan and any time significant revisions to the plan are proposed. SMHA’s Plan is available online year-round on the City’s website, consisting of the 5-year Plan, the Annual Plan, and the Administrative Plan. In a typical year, the proposed SMHA Annual Plan (a streamlined, 3-page federal form) and Administrative Plan (containing federally established policies and some local discretionary policies) are posted for a 45-day public review period. As mentioned earlier in this report, given the highly regulated nature of the HCV program, opportunities for the local SMHA to create discretionary policies are limited in scope.

All SMHA program participants, including the RAB (which consists only of HCV participants), are directly notified annually via email and mail and are encouraged to provide input regarding each year’s Annual Plan and Administrative Plan. Typically, there may be no proposed changes to the Annual Plan and minor proposed changes to the Administrative Plan to enhance voucher household opportunities and clarify policies.

Some years there may be no proposed changes to the Annual and Administrative Plans, but HUD still requires the public review and Housing Authority Board approval process to occur. The notification to program participants describes the process for submitting feedback, allowing for various formats including email, paper mail, and/or

7.A
Packet Pg. 372
7 of 11
telephone, as well as public meetings of the Housing Commission and City Council (meeting as the Housing Authority Board).

The current model of the RAB and the methods of input reflect a simple feedback loop between the RAB and SMHA staff in which attendance at (usually evening) meetings is not required. Additional opportunities for input at public meetings are also provided.

The following summarized the current approach:

1. Email/mail/phone feedback method respects the privacy of participants not comfortable exposing their program participation in a public setting, or who may have obligations which conflict with attending meetings.

2. Housing Commission meetings are also held to receive public input on the SMHA plans and RAB members (and all voucher program participants) are notified of the opportunity to attend the Housing Commission meeting and provide input.

3. Housing Authority Board (HAB) meetings where the proposed SMHA plans are considered and RAB members, as well as the broader public, may provide input.

It should be noted that the SMHA is required by federal regulations to recognize and address recommendations made by RAB members, whether such recommendations come from an individual or a group.

The following table summarizes requirements regarding the RAB and describes how compliance is currently being achieved by the SMHA:

RAB Requirement Current Compliant Approach
PHAs have discretion in determining the
method of appointment of RABs, as long as a
PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect
and represent all the residents assisted by
the PHA. Participation in a RAB is limited to
residents that are assisted under federally
assisted public housing and the Section 8
tenant-based program.

All SMHA participants in the Section 8
(officially known as the Housing Choice
Voucher program) have been appointed as
RAB members, allowing for the broadest
possible inclusion of voucher residents in the
RAB.

7.A
Packet Pg. 373
8 of 11
RAB Requirement Current Compliant Approach
The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or
Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and
make recommendations regarding the
development of the PHA plan, and any
significant amendment or modification to the
PHA plan.

All SMHA RAB members are provided both
discreet (via email/mail/phone) and public
opportunities (Housing Commission and
Housing Authority Board) to provide input and
make recommendations regarding the PHA
plan and proposed modifications.

The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources
to assure the effective functioning of
Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable
resources for the Resident Advisory Boards
must provide reasonable means for them to
become informed on programs covered by
the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and
by telephone with assisted families and hold
meetings with those families, and to access
information regarding covered programs on
the internet, taking into account the size and
resources of the PHA.

SMHA Plans (5-Year Plan, Annual Plan,
and Administrative Plan) are available
online year-round.

City website has additional information
about SMHA programs.

RAB and assisted families are one in the
same, and not distinct groups.

RAB consists of all HCV assisted families
and are invited to an annual meeting
hosted by the Housing Commission as a
forum for providing input, which must be
considered by SMHA staff and
communicated to the Housing Authority
Board (HAB) prior to the HABs review and
approval of the proposed SMHA plans.

HUD has approved the current SMHA
approach to the RAB as in compliance
because RAB members are provided
opportunities for input on the SMHA plans.

The PHA must consider the
recommendations of the Resident Advisory
Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual
Plan, and any significant amendment or
modification to the Annual Plan, as provided
in §903.21 of this title.

When presenting the final, proposed SMHA
plans to the Housing Authority Board and to
HUD for consideration and approval, the
SMHA includes both summary and verbatim
feedback and recommendations from the
RAB.

Alternative to Current RAB Input Process
While the current RAB approach and process has been approved by HUD, some community members have requested that the City take additional steps to facilitate a more robust RAB process. Examples of suggestions include an opportunity for the RAB membership to meet as a group, discuss issues, and make recommendations to the SMHA. Although the role of the RAB is to provide input on the PHA Plans, a process which occurs annually, some community members have also suggested that multiple

7.A
Packet Pg. 374
9 of 11
RAB meetings per year, such as quarterly, could improve the exchange of information among voucher program participants as well as comprehension about SMHA policies.

The three options described below and further detailed in Attachment A represent possible alternatives for Council consideration and direction regarding approaches to conducting RAB meetings and formation, in the order of least to most resourceintensive.

Existing staffing resources are available to facilitate a virtual opt-in communication channel (Option 1) or a virtual annual RAB meeting in place of the RAB’s annual opportunity to provide feedback at a Housing Commission meeting (Option 2). Should Council desire Option 3 or a different approach not mentioned in this report, additional resources or direction to divert existing resources from current affordable housing priorities would be needed.

Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and Independently of SMHA
A virtual communication channel to facilitate group communication could be created as an informational forum for RAB members, who voluntarily opt-in, to converse in general about voucher program issues. This option would create an email group (e.g., LISTSERV) to provide opportunities for participants to schedule in-person or virtual meet-up groups. The communication channel could serve as a springboard to other types of connections. Once formed, participating RAB members would be responsible for the manner and frequency in which to communicate and/or convene (virtually, inperson, hybrid) without SMHA involvement.

Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop Staff would organize and conduct an annual RAB workshop, in-lieu of the traditional annual Housing Commission forum for feedback on the SMHA Plans. Option 1 could also be implemented to complement this Option 2. The next SMHA Annual Plan cycle begins in early 2023, so with Council direction to proceed with Option 2, the next annual RAB workshop could occur in February 2023.

7.A
Packet Pg. 375
10 of 11
Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly
Council would appoint a subset of HCV participants to a RAB to represent all 1,300+ HCV participants and staff would then organize and support quarterly RAB meetings. (A few community members have suggested quarterly meetings.) Before this option could be implemented, staff would return to Council at mid-year to recommend specifics regarding Council appointment of the RAB, RAB operations, and staff resources necessary for implementation. However, as the next SMHA Annual Plan cycle begins in early 2023, staff would continue the existing approach to RAB input involving direct communication between SMHA staff and the 1,300+ RAB members during February.

Additionally, with Council direction, staff would implement the Option 1 approach of creating a group-level communication forum for interested parties to opt-in, to allow participants to convene and collaborate prior to the 2023 SMHA Annual Plan input process.

See also Attachment A for further details regarding resources, implementation, opportunities, and considerations associated with each of the three options.

Other Considerations
In considering alternative methods to the existing formation and input opportunities of the RAB, Council may wish to wait for the outcome of the November 2022 election, as one of the ballot initiatives, if adopted, would generate funding for affordable housing programs and require a resident oversight committee. Given the existing RAB and the Housing Commission, and the possibility of a new resident oversight committee, there may be a convergence of affordable housing issues and policy that fall under the various bodies. An opportunity would then exist to clearly identify the roles and scope of the various bodies, the existing and necessary human and capital resources to adequately function, and the corresponding required budget actions.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Options 1 and 2 can be implemented with currently budgeted resources. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future

7.A
Packet Pg. 376
11 of 11
associated with resources necessary to implement Option 3 or other Council-directed processes for RAB input.

Prepared By: Jim Kemper, Housing Program Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process B. Written Comments

7.A
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process 1 Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Staff Resources
& Role
Staff involvement, with existing
resources, to:
• Create group-level
communication channel
accounts
• Initial notification of RAB
members of choice to opt-in
Staff would not create or maintain
the email list, communicate to the
opt-in group about meetings, or
attend meetings
Staff involvement, with existing
resources, to:
• Organize, implement, attend,
and document an ANNUAL
virtual RAB workshop
This approach would replace the
annual Housing Commission
meeting dedicated for the same
purpose
Staff involvement, with the
ADDITION of organizational and
supportive resources to:
• Organize, implement, attend,
and document QUARTERLY
meeting(s)
Staff would return to Council at
mid-year to recommend specifics
regarding Council appointing the
RAB, operations, and staff
resources necessary to implement
this option

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194 Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process 2 Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Formation &
Communication
Staff would initially contact all
1,300+ RAB members to inform
them of opportunity to opt-in to a
group-level email communication
channel
Any notifications and meetings
coordination thereafter would be
the responsibility of the
participants opting in to this group
Staff would contact all 1,300+ RAB
members to inform them of the
annual workshop opportunity
Allow an opportunity for input via
email/mail/phone
Council would appoint a subset of
HCV participants to the RAB to
represent all 1,300+ HCV
participants
Staff would organize and support
quarterly RAB meetings
Membership
All HCV (Section 8) persons with
Santa Monica vouchers would be
eligible to participate
All HCV (Section 8) persons with
Santa Monica vouchers would be
eligible to participate
All HCV (Section 8) persons with
Santa Monica vouchers could be
considered for appointment to the
RAB
Its composition is required to be
representative of the broader HCV
population

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194 Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process 3 Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Meetings
Participants decide
• Meeting frequency
• How to conduct discussions
• Ready themselves for future
input on SMHA Plans
One annual workshop where staff
would receive input on SMHA
Plans
Quarterly meetings
Housing
Commission Role
N/A
Annual RAB workshop would
replace the annual Housing
Commission meeting scheduled
for input on the SMHA Plans
RAB meeting(s) would replace
Housing Commission meeting
scheduled for input on the SMHA
Plans
Opportunities
Provides a forum for HCV holders
to discuss issues with other
voucher holders and refine
thinking for input to the SMHA
regarding Plans
Provides an opportunity for HCV
holders to provide input in a forum
where other voucher holders may
attend and provide related input on
SMHA Plans
Staff would continue to provide an
opportunity for input via
email/mail/phone
Provides an opportunity for RAB to
convene multiple times during the
year in a forum where other HCV
holders may attend and discuss
HCV program issues

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194 Attachment A
Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process 4 Option 1
Facilitate Opportunities for RAB
Members to Meet Virtually and
Independently of SMHA
Option 2
SMHA Organizes and Supports
Annual Virtual RAB Workshop
Option 3
Council Appoints RAB and Meets
Quarterly
Considerations
Responsibility of successfully
implementing this option would
fall on the RAB members who
opt-in
Would not relieve SMHA of:
• responsibility to notify all RAB
members annually regarding
the SMHA Plans process
• allow an opportunity for input
• address input received from
individual RAB members
Possible confusion among RAB
members about input
opportunities regarding the official
RAB – which is all 1,300+ HCV
households – and a cohort of
RAB members who choose to
opt-in and participate in grouplevel communications
May not satisfy request from some
community members for multiple
RAB meetings during the year
As meeting attendance may not
work for many voucher holders,
staff recommends that the
quarterly RAB meetings would
need to be paired with
opportunities for all voucher
holders to provide input via email,
mail, or phone
A Council-appointed RAB would
be subject to the Brown Act
Size of the RAB, criteria and
process for selection, and
achieving a RAB representative of
HCV participants, would be key
considerations in creating a new
RAB.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process [Revision 1] (5194 Santa Monica Housing Commission
RAB Recommendations
Adopted 1 September 2022 by unanimous vote of all Commissioners present After considerable individual research, including RAB configurations, bylaws, and practices in other jurisdictions; trauma-informed community engagement; and consultation with attorneys from nonprofit Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) and National Housing Law Project (NHLP); as well as extensive input by Santa Monica Housing Authority program participants and other local residents; review of relevant Housing Authority staff report and recommendations; and extensive public discussion; the Santa Monica Housing Commission unanimously recommends the following to best support and empower Housing Authority program participants to exercise their federal right to self-representation:

1. The Housing Authority Board agrees to establish a Client Advisory Board (CAB) that represents all Housing Authority program participants, including Continuum of Care, HOME, Emergency, project-based HCV, and other voucher holders, in addition to tenant-based HCV holders, in compliance with 24 CFR § 903.13(a), which states "a Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA."

2. The CAB be composed of 7-15 Housing Authority clients, with the inclusion of at least one member from each major federally funded Housing Authority program

3. Program participants collectively decide for themselves how CAB members are chosen, CAB meeting frequency, content of CAB bylaws, and who will represent the CAB on the Housing Authority Board (including at least one tenant-based voucher holder, as required by federal regulation)

4. SMHA Board directs staff to immediately schedule an initial hybrid CAB meeting and mail notice of this meeting to all 1600+ Housing Authority program participant households. Notices should be written in English and Spanish, with options to request translation in additional languages, to ensure recipients’ understanding. Notices should be sent by physical mail, and additionally by email to clients who have also provided an email address

5. All CAB meetings be public and agendized and staff notify all SMHA program participants by both mail and email in sufficient advance

6. CAB members hold special or subcommittee meetings as needed In addition to regular meetings

7. The drafting and adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding between the CAB and SMHA Board, to be incorporated into the Housing Authority Board bylaws by reference and the Administrative Plan in its entirety

8. CAB bylaws be included in the Housing Authority Administrative Plan Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board)

9. SMHA use federal funds allocated for administrative costs to pay for the CAB communications detailed below*, basic administrative costs, and possible relevant educational and training opportunities

10.The CAB, once established, proposes an annual budget for approval by the Housing Authority Board. An initial budget may be estimated before the first CAB meeting based on the cost of the Housing Commission recommendations

11. Each CAB member receives a $50 stipend for each CAB meeting attended

12.Staff advise all clients and the CAB about all regular timelines for the Housing Authority planning process to ensure maximum participation

13.In future, CAB members periodically invite Housing Authority staff to provide educational presentations on the Annual, Administrative, and 5-Year Plans as needed

14.The Housing Commission has created an ad hoc CAB Subcommittee to provide input and guidance to Housing Authority clients as needed while they form the CAB. We also recommend extending invitations to Denise McGranahan of LAFLA, Darryn Mumphery of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), Bridgett Simmons of the National Housing Law Project (NHLP), and other independent and knowledgeable people or groups to attend the first CAB meeting and act as resources to clients while they make initial CAB decisions
*Detailed recommendations for independent and fully accessible communications:

A. Dedicated phone number with TDD & TTY accessibility and outgoing messaging that will be recorded and maintained by the CAB
B. Physical city mailbox for written correspondence
C. CAB materials in all new client onboarding, including new and ported vouchers D. Continuing city email addresses for Housing Authority Board members E. All mailings to SMHA clients translated in their preferred languages F. Translation support at CAB meetings as needed
G. Occasional translator support for outgoing phone messages H. Physical and digital mailings to all SMHA participants to notify them of CAB meetings in sufficient advance
I. Surveys sent 2x/year to all SMHA clients for the first two years and annually thereafter
J. Occasional staff presentations at CAB meetings, by invitation, to inform CAB about the Annual, Administrative, and 5 Year Plans
Item 7.A
09/13/22
2 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) Notes on CAB costs and funding
The Housing Commission's recommendations involve three primary expense categories:
stipends, communications, and existing City infrastructure. ● Stipends would cost $350-750 per meeting for 7-15 CAB members ● Total listed communications, excluding initial website creation and existing city infrastructure, would cost approximately $590-775 per year ● Changing current staff mass mailing practices could dramatically reduce cost Federal funds are available to pay for all CAB related expenses.

Note on staff support
By design, these Housing Commission recommendations rely on minimal staff support.

Submitted by Michelle Gray, Santa Monica Housing Commission Chair, on 13 September 2022 via written public comment
Item 7.A
09/13/22
3 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ryan Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: Input re Resident Advisory Board (RAB)

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board and SMHA Executive Director White, This letter is being submitted in support of the Santa Monica Housing Commission’s recommendations for the formation of the Santa Monica Client Advisory Board (CAB).

Tenants Together is a statewide coalition of local tenant organizations dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of California tenants to safe, decent, and affordable housing. As California’s only statewide renters’ rights organization, Tenants Together works to improve the lives of California’s tenants by supporting local groups like those in Santa Monica. Tenants Together seeks to support and strengthen the statewide movement for renters’ rights.

As such, Tenants Together recognizes the importance of meaningful Housing Authority client representation and recommend that such representation be as independent and self-directed as possible.

Our organization urges the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board to adopt the CAB recommendations that will be presented by the Santa Monica Housing Commission on September 13, 2022.

Sincerely,
Ryan Bell
________________________________
Ryan Bell - he/him
Southern California Regional Coordinator
Tenants Together
323.313.4035
www.tenantstogether.org
Item 7.A
09/13/22
4 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Deborah Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Theresa Marasco; Michelle Gray
Subject: 9/13/2022 Council Meeting Request for Presentation/Addressing the members

EXTERNAL
Please accept this request for time to address the meeting attendees for the Housing Commissions recommendations for a separate CAB (RAB) , and to add a few comments which I think are necessary.

Please know that I am also hoping to be a member of the first CAB, and hope to be an active and productive constituent of positive, incremental change for all tenants whom are voucher holders within the City of Santa Monica.

Three Primary Issues I wish to address:
1) To create a CAB to be functional within 1 months’ time to avoid further delays in addressing specific tenant requirements, questions regarding their vouchers, and enhanced representation within annual administrative and the 5 year planning process with the S.M. Housing Authority Program; 2) The need to address completely and in it’s entirety the difference of the CoC voucher (Continuum of Care) and standard voucher and what additional benefits this voucher provides as well as how to access those benefits as needed and without undue delay;
3) The desire and ultimate need to enact (or re‐enact) the provision for home ownership thru the S.M. voucher program – this is a humongous asset NOT be wasting and it is my understanding that the funds are available thru the Federal government for the housing program and indeed, already been distributed to those Cities….. why are we not using those funds? Cost is not a factor!
Thanking you in advance for considering my request for addressing the audience and the Board in the very important matter.

Sincerely,
Deborah Lynch
(310) 869‐6472
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 7.A
09/13/22
5 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Louis <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: Agenda Item 7.A: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches - City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers, Santa Monica Housing Authority Board As board members, you have critically important choices to make tonight. Simply put, this item asks that you distinguish (and choose) between two concepts: 1. the human right of self-determination and selfrepresentation (for the poor, disabled, elderly, and working class), and 2. the human need to control, to further marginalize and disenfranchise these groups.

We all know which choice we say we prefer, in public. But how do we act when it comes time to walk the walk?
In my opinion, individuals who qualify (or will qualify) for federally subsidized housing and those clients who currently reside in such housing, do not seek or need sympathy from City Staff or Housing Authority Board for their hardship or life situation. They need action. They do not seek or need empathy or performative platitudes offered with the best of intentions from a distance — from the City staff offices or from the dais during Housing Authority Board/City Council Meetings. They need compassionate action. They need public officials and government employees to meet them where they are, as unique individuals. In need of self-representation. Not where Santa Monica City officials and many other governments across this land have historically left these groups. Without a voice. Without a unified voice and self-representation.

The human right to self-determination and self-representation along with the human right to independence and autonomy form the foundation of what we call a participatory democracy. Those who benefit from such a system have their agency recognized and nurtured. Their health, well-being, and life situation can stabilize or improve because they are valued as human beings. They are treated with dignity and respect.

As stated in the staff report for this item, the Housing Authority Board directed City staff to return with a discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate Resident Advisory Board (RAB) input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans. City staff’s report created in response to this Housing Authority Board’s direction came up with three options.

First, the report states: “Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing ‘The role of a resident council is to improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to create a positive living environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations)”. This purpose of resident involvement would no doubt apply to all federal housing program participant representative bodies. Including the RAB.

Staff Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and Independently of SMHA Staff Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop Staff Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly Item 7.A
09/13/22
6 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 2 Options 2 and 3 involve unnecessary and intrusive City government engagement and entanglement. These options should be immediately taken off the table, and are frankly absurd given City staff’s historical animosity, resistance, and outright intransigence to allowing the formation of a fully functioning, independent and autonomous RAB. Meaning not a RAB that exists only on paper.

Choosing option 2 or 3 would be analogous in many respects to a situation where the first-ever Amazon Labor Union (ALU), formed in 2021, would require the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself to be involved in “Organizing and Supporting Virtual Annual Employee Workshop” (Option 2) and the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself would be “Appointing Employee Union Representatives Which Meets Quarterly” (Option 3). While the RAB is clearly far from a “labor union”, it is a consumer union of sorts. Or it is intended to function like one in many respects.

Choosing Option 2 or 3 or anything else that resembles them, is essentially a form of union busting. This is obvious to anyone in the public or in public office who examines these issues in good faith. I believe that choosing Option 1 along with the following Housing Commission recommendations would be the best choice.

Below are my recommendations and discussion items, many of which are informed by and/or shared with those of the Housing Commission. Most, if not all of them are supported by a large number of RAB members, other Federal Housing Programs participants, and members of the public I have met informally with, as well as those I have watched while attending Housing Commission meetings. This is especially the case for the most recent meeting on 9/1/22, where the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB was a main topic. This historic and unprecedented meeting was attended by approximately 60 individuals — many of them RAB members. It was truely an inspiring evening.

1. The RAB: Optimal Participation, Independence, Inclusivity, Access, Representation a. Everything must be done, all the stops pulled out to ensure that the greatest amount of participation, access, and inclusivity will occur. Many US cities are trending in this direction.

HUD is encouraging and enabling this trend. The City of Santa Monica, which considers itself rather progressive and regularly promotes and celebrates diversity, should follow suit. Better put, it should lead other cities in the right direction. b. Fundamental recommendations of the Housing Commission (among others found in this public comment) are as follows:
i) that the RAB be as independent of City staff as humanly possible. ii) that there will be absolutely minimal staff involvement, in other words by invitation only. iii) support from the City will be limited to assistance with things such as access to translators, mailings and other functional/logistical supports to be determined by the RAB. iii) that staff will be welcome to show up to meetings a couple of times a year (by invitation) — perhaps more often — to explain various salient matters related to the RAB. c.
d.

2. Widening the Scope and Diversity of Federal Housing Program Participation . The Housing Commission recommends that the RAB include all federal housing program participants, within a larger more inclusive tent, not just limited to tenant-based Housing Choice voucher holders.
a. Federal housing program participants and RAB members have expressed resounding support for widening the umbrella.
b. It is crucial that the Housing Authority Board direct staff to schedule a RAB meeting immediately. It is recommended that invitations be sent out expeditiously so that interested clients can all meet for the first time, as soon as possible.

3. City Staff has a long history of either incompetence or intentional neglect or both, when it comes to facilitating the formation of a fully functional, independent RAB ( not just a RAB on paper). City staff should not be allowed to usurp/replace/undermine the authority of the Housing Commission in its crucial representation of stakeholders. The Housing Commission’s mandate is to advise the Housing Authority.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
7 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 3 a. It is evident that even by the current recommendations of staff, the City staff remain far out of touch with the clients’ actual needs.
b. Staff is responsible for years of problems and non-responsiveness to the needs of voucher holders.
c. After decades of lack of self-representation for clients, it’s inappropriate for Staff to be the ones making recommendations when their previous judgment has been so poor, and they have been so inaccessible, disconnected, and out of touch.
d. The authoritative source of recommendations to the Housing Authority is the Housing Commission. Not the staff. Santa Monica City staff has a whole history of bad decisions, especially with regard to RAB formation. Unfortunately, they are currently defending those bad decisions.
e. City staff has essentially no contact with clients. The Housing Commission, on the other hand, historically (for years, very often monthly and especially recently), has been actively engaged with clients. The Housing Commission has gone out of its way to solicit input directly and with candor from the clients. And every recommendation of the Housing Commission is informed by a genuine concern for what the clients actually need and want. f. With staff options 2 and 3, staff is clearly attempting to circumvent the Housing Commission — take them out of the review process. These last two options appear designed to simply get input all in one place and at the same time so that the Housing Commission will no longer participate in the Housing Authority planning process. This is extraordinarily problematic on so many levels. g. Staff is trying to conflate these two bodies, their jurisdictions and purviews. These are two distinct public bodies. Staff trying to cut the Housing Commission out of proceedings is just another way to disenfranchise, exclude, and sideline more housing clients. h. Merriam-webster defines disenfranchise as “broadly signifying depriving someone of any of a number of legal rights, it is most often used today of withholding the right to vote, or of the diminished social or political status of a marginalized group. [Also,] to deprive of some privilege or immunity; especially to deprive of the right to vote; disenfranchising the poor and elderly. If the Housing Commission is removed from the equation these groups are exactly who will be disenfranchised, sidelined, and excluded.
i. Anyone who is genuinely working in good faith should welcome all the work the Housing Commission has done and is set to do, regarding the RAB, and their good faith interactions with federal housing program participants. But it is clear City staff are still trying to minimize the participation of program participants (and the Housing Commission) in general, by saying IF we get a couple of people who are clients, then the Housing Commission doesn’t have to weigh in anymore. This is extremely problematic. Generally speaking, City staff employees are not reliable narrators for this highly nuanced cause. They are not appropriate sources of recommendations.

4. It is inappropriate at the very least and unlawful at most, that the Staff Report and recommendations for this item include political speech concerning an upcoming election regarding a ballot measure. This might be considered a form of electioneering. Although the law allows for some exceptions (for purely informational purposes, for example), a public official may not promote or try to influence the outcome of a ballot measure or candidate’s election, if that dissemination of information is conducted in the capacity of or during the course of work as a public official.
. Staff’s brief recommendation is essentially to postpone the forming of the RAB (or engagement in the necessary preparatory steps) until after the November election. a. Staff’s supporting reason: if the ballot initiative passes, staff could provide housing funds to support RAB efforts. And this could affect how the RAB forms and operates. Simply, this is staff repeating a political talking point. This is inappropriate in the context of a staff report and it is a ridiculous foundation for recommendations that affect thousands of Santa Monicans who’ve been waiting for 22 years to be able to exercise the right to self-representation. b. The formation of the RAB has nothing to do with this election year or a ballot measure. This has to do with the RAB only. For City Staff to try to mix it in with an election year, it gives the appearance that staff has its own agenda. That staff has a plan separate and apart for what is best for RAB members and the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB Item 7.A
09/13/22
8 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 4 c. City staff or any public official who will not allow or promote RAB independent selfrepresentation and self-determination are hiding behind process arguments. This is similar in some ways to when Republicans in Congress would not allow a Supreme court confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, just because it was to occur in the same election year. So, why would City staff use a process argument? Perhaps it is because they have run out of stalling tactics and other tricks in order to prevent the formation of a fully functioning, fully independent RAB.
d. Staff unnecessarily gave a plug for the ballot measure and used it as a tool to delay any action on the RAB. It is not only political speech, but it is also irrelevant because this involves people participating in federal housing programs. This participation is regulated by something entirely different. It has nothing to do with what is happening locally. e. This inappropriate political speech demonstrates what we advocates have been saying for years about City staff bias, especially with regard to the formation of the RAB. That staff has a strong tendency to insert themselves into having their own agendas that are in conflict with sound public policy and the spirit of participatory democracy. And again, this is also completely irrelevant because the issue at hand concerns federal programs and federal money.

It is worth reaffirming what has been mentioned in numerous public comments submitted by advocates to this Housing Authority Board, City Council, and past Housing Commissions — that this RAB is 20+ years overdue and there has been vigorous advocacy for the past almost 3 years. The Housing Authority Board and City of Santa Monica need to move on this. The time to act is now.

Thank you for considering my public input.

Michael Louis
Item 7.A
09/13/22
9 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete
Subject: 7-A (RAB) public comment
Attachments: PRRAC NHLP policy brief.pdf

EXTERNAL
This email, and the attachment, constitute my public input to item 7-A at the 9/13/22 meeting of the SMHAB.

I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission's well vetted recommendations regarding the formation of an autonomous, robust Resident Advisory Board that includes representatives of all the federally subsidized housing programs administered by the Santa Monica Housing Authority, with minimal staff involvement or and with zero impact on the City's budget. A proposed name would be "CAB," which stands for Client Advisory Board.

Here are the highlights of the recommendations:
a) RAB/CAB an entirely autonomous body, independent of staff, SMHAB, Housing Commission or any other city committee.
b) CAB includes solely participants of federally funded housing programs, and has anarrow jurisdiction that pertains to those federally funded programs, therefore cannot be combined with, or conflated with any other housing related city board or committee. c) CAB includes representatives from all major federally funded programs administered by SMHA, not just tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. Therefore the CAB would include Continuum of Care representatives, HOME program participants and representatives of project-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. It makes sense for the CAB to be inclusive of all the federally funded programs administered by SMHA.
d) no city budget needed. Federal Housing Authority admin fees are supposed to be used for the CAB, plus soon there will be designated HUD funding for the RABs (there's advocacy at the federal level now via Congressman Andy Levin and PRRAC – Poverty and Race Research Advocacy Council and the National Housing Law Project). See the attached policy brief. https://www.prrac.org/expanding-federal-support-for-tenant-organizing-in-federally-assisted-housingand-the-housing-choice-voucher-program-february-2022/ d. minimal staff time involvement (mostly to facilitate communications, which is actually already REQUIRED by HUD's RAB guidelines). Staff will be asked to send out notices of CAB meetings, provide translation if needed, from time to time present to CAB on the proposed Admin Plan changes or parts of the Admin Plan – by CAB invitation only.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
10 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 2 e. MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between SMHA and CAB will serve as a document that spells out each party's responsibilities and duties. This was recommended by two specialized attorneys from PRRAC and NHLP. MOUs are very common in federally subsidized tenant participation.

I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission recommendations and to direct staff to use Housing Commission recommendations as guidance for facilitating the formation of an autonomous CAB, including a direction for the staff to immediately notice the very first formal meeting of the Santa Monica CAB.

A notice of such a meeting should go out to all 1,677 voucher households by snail mail and by email if the family provided an email address.

At this meeting CAB will discuss more details on how they want to organize themselves (with Housing Commission subcommittee being available to CAB during this meeting as a resource, and reps from PRRAC, NHLP and LAFLA SM – also as a resource only). CAB will then start working on a proposed MOU to be presented to SMHAB at a later date to formalize and codify the CAB.

Participants of the SMHA-administered federally funded housing program have been waiting for this for DECADES, during which time the Santa Monica Housing Commission was violating federal regulations mandating at the very least a RAB.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 7.A
09/13/22
11 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; David White
Subject: Public Input - 9/13/2022 City Council Agenda Item 7A

EXTERNAL
Date: September 13, 2022
Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting September 13, 2022 Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item 7. STUDY SESSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
A.Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board; and Santa Monica Housing Authority Executive Director, David White:

First, I want to be clear that even though I am the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission, I am commenting as a person of the public, but more importantly, I am commenting as an actual RAB member and someone who has been a Housing Choice Voucher holder for more than 27 years.

I could go into great detail about the fact that the City of Santa Monica’s Housing Authority has not taken steps to ensure that there is an active, engaged, robust, well-informed Resident Advisory Board, but I and many others have done that over and over for the last 5 years only to be ignored. Real simple, there has NEVER been a real Resident Advisory Board in the City of Santa Monica.

Regardless of the justifications and misleading statements in the “staff report,” the clients of the Santa Monica Housing Authority have never had a real opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. The voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the city have NEVER been allowed to be heard. For over 22 years, the City of Santa Monica has been out of compliance with HUD’s federal mandate to provide us with the resources we need to be active and engaged such as a place to meet, a Zoom account to hold meetings in a hybrid setting, a website to provide information to the clients of the SMHA and have refused to allow us to choose our own leadership.

I respectfully request that the SMHAB vote to immediately create a CAB or Client Advisory Board to include all clients of the SMHA asap.

I am now requesting that the SMHAB do the following:

1. Adopt the recommendations of the Housing Commission that were voted on and approved by all present Housing Commissioners and the 66 people who attended the September 1, 2022, Housing Commission meeting

2. Immediately schedule 1st CAB meeting for 4-6 weeks from now

3. Mail meeting notice to all 1600+ HA clients, with translations (Housing Commission CAB Subcommittee can write the letter)

4. Take Housing Commission recommendations as direction for how to proceed, beginning with a meeting and letters to go out to all 1600 + SMHA clients
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
12 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) 2 To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 7.A
09/13/22
13 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) Expanding Federal Support for Tenant Organizing in Federally Assisted Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Program February 2022
The federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides legal protection and financial support for tenant organizing in several of HUD’s housing programs. Unfortunately, the housing choice voucher (HCV) program lacks the same organizing protections, creating uneven tenant protections throughout HUD’s housing programs. The right to organize has long been viewed as a key component of successful HUD housing programs. HUD directs Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and private owners to support tenant organizing by acknowledging tenant organizations, responding to their advocacy efforts, and, in some cases, provide funding. HUD’s regulations also protect tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing against retaliatory evictions for organizing.1
Voucher participants should have a right to organize, just as HUD has provided in the public housing and project-based rental assistance housing programs. HUD should promulgate tenant organizing regulations for the HCV program that allow for the greatest flexibility and have the lowest barriers to organizing. Additionally, HUD should fund voucher tenant organizing activities, as it has done for public housing tenants, but in a more consistent and meaningful way.

Federal Protections for Tenant Organizing – Public Housing Public housing tenants have a right to organize under 24 CFR § 964.11.2 This regulation establishes that any Public Housing Authority (PHA) that has a Public Housing Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) must recognize tenants’ right to organize, elect a resident council representing their interests, and have that resident council recognized by the PHA.3 The regulation encourages PHAs to collaborate with the elected residents to improve the community overall.

Under 24 CFR pt. 964, resident councils must be structured according to the statute for the organization to be considered legitimate. Members must be elected, and the council must create and adopt some sort of written procedures (like bylaws or a constitution) for governance.4 Resident councils can be comprised of members from one community, meaning multiple resident councils can exist within a PHA. These councils can represent a property or be city-wide.5 1 Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Revision of Tenant Participation Requirements in Accordance with 24 CFR Part 245 at 5-8 (Mar. 31, 2016), https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/16-05HSGN.PDF. 2 24 CFR § 964.11. 3 24 CFR § 964.11. 24 CFR § 964.3 (a). 4 24 CFR § 964.115.
5 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
14 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – HUD Assisted Multi-Family Housing HUD regulations convey the right to organize to tenants in properties that participate in HUD’s multi-family housing Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA) programs.6 These programs include
Project-based Section 8 Rental Assistance, Section 202, Section 811, and properties with specific HUD-held and HUD-insured mortgages.
7 24 CFR § 245.100 gives tenants in qualifying properties the right to “establish and operate a tenant organization.”8 These organizations are to be created and led by tenants to address community development concerns, issues regarding the building or its units, and the “terms and conditions of their tenancy.”9 Property owners and property managers are to “recognize…and give reasonable consideration to concerns raised by legitimate tenant organizations.”10
HUD regulation requires owners and managers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate tenants’ requests for accessible meeting spaces within the property for organizing activities or organizational operations. Property owners may charge tenants “reasonable, customary and usual” fees for the use of meeting spaces on the property.11
24 CFR pt. 245 also provides protection for the organizing activities of non-resident organizers working with tenants.12 Under 24 CFR § 245.100 tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing cannot be evicted for organizing. The regulation also explicitly delineates several organizing activities property owners and managers must allow tenants to partake in without prior permission.13
Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Tenants in public housing properties that undergo RAD conversion retain the right to organize regardless of whether their development is converted to Section 8 Project-Based Voucher property or to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance property.14 It should be noted that resident organizing at properties converted to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance are subject to the 6 24 CFR § 245.10 states the right to organize is applicable to tenants living in: multi-family housing projects subject to a HUD insured or held mortgage under the National Housing Act; formerly HUD-owned projects; state or local housing finance agency projects; projects receiving project-based assistance under section 8 of the US Housing Act of 1937, but not when PHAs administer the project-based assistance; projects receiving enhanced vouchers under the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, or the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997; projects receiving assistance under Section 202 Direct Loan or Supportive Housing for the Elderly programs; projects receiving assistance under the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program. 7 Jessie Cassella, Understanding Project-Based Rental Assistance (Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.nhlp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Saving-HUD-Homes-2-FINAL.pdf. 8 24 CFR 245.100. 9 Id. 10 24 CFR § 245.105. 24 CFR § 245.110 defines a “legitimate tenant organization” as an organization that has been “established by the tenants of a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 for the purpose described in § 245.100, and meets regularly, operates democratically, is representative of all residents in the development, and is completely independent of owners, management, and their representatives.” 11 24 CFR § 245.120 (c). 12 24 CFR § 245.120. 13 24 CFR § 245.115. 14 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/TENANTORGANIZINGAFTERRAD.PDF; Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Rental Assistance Demonstration – Final Implementation, Revision 4 at 129-34 (Sept. 5, 2019), Item 7.A
09/13/22
15 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) requirements in 24 CFR pt. 245 rather than those of part 964 – subjecting those tenants to the same right to organize regulations as tenants in HUD-assisted multi-family housing.15 Funding for Tenant Organizing
Through the ACC with HUD, PHAs are provided with funds to support public housing tenant participation activities. HUD gives PHAs $25 per unit each year via the Operating Fund Grant.16 This $25 allotment is to be used by PHAs to fund tenant participation activities, and at minimum, $15 of the $25 allocation must be used by resident councils for the support of training and organizing efforts.17 The $25 allotment has not increased since it was originally authorized and due in part to inflation, is generally too low to cover the cost of tenant participation activities.18 When there is no resident council, PHAs are encouraged to use their portion of the funding to encourage tenant participation activities, including training and capacity-building for residents to form a resident council.19 HUD allows PHAs to utilize a portion of that $15 to fund stipends for resident council officers serving as volunteers in their developments. These stipends are capped at $200 per month, per officer.20 PHAs are allowed to keep $10 of the $25 allotment to allowable expenditures, which includes a broad range of activities regarding tenant participation. These activities include community elections, printing, and meeting space rentals.21 Public housing converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), whether converted to PBV or PBRA, retain the $25 per unit, per year allocation for tenant participation activities.

Resident organizations in RAD conversions must still receive at least $15 per unit, per year for tenant organizing activities.22
Currently, there is no regulatory requirement for HUD to provide funding to PBRA tenants for organizing activities. Section 514 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRAA) authorizes HUD to spend up to $10 million annually from the Project Based Section 8 account, for tenant organizing, training and capacity-building.23 However, since 2001, HUD has committed approximately 7% of the available funding.24 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/H-2019-09-PIH-2019- 23_RAD_Notice%20Rev4_20190905.pdf. 15 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 16 24 CFR § 964.150; Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 17 Id. 18 Josh Cohen, HUD Has Money for Tenant Organizing. Why Isn't the Agency Spending It? Shelterforce (2021), https://shelterforce.org/2021/03/19/hud-has-money-for-tenant-organizing-why-isnt-the-agency-spending-it/ 19 24 CFR § 964.150 (a). See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50. See also Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). Resident participation activities are not limited to organizing, however in this Notice organizing activities are explicitly mentioned by HUD as examples of appropriate ways to spend the allotted funds. 20 24 CFR § 964.150 (b). 21 Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 22 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 23 42 USC § 1437f note. 24 The National Alliance of HUD Tenants estimates that HUD has committed only $13 million out of the $190 million that could have been used for this purpose.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
16 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) Tenant Organizing in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) tenants are typically scattered across a PHA’s service area, so tenants face additional barriers to their organizing efforts. Also, HUD’s regulations do not include the same legal protections for HCV tenants interested in organizing, nor does HUD provide funding for HCV tenants to organize. As with all voucher and public housing tenants, HCV tenants may participate in Resident Advisory Boards or become involved in the PHA Plan process.25 For broader organizing efforts, however, HCV tenants must turn to tenant organizing groups that operate more broadly within the community.

Recommendations (in brief)
The right to organize is vital and empowers tenants in federally assisted housing. 26 In order to move in the direction of progress on this issue, HUD should consider:
• Increasing the amount of funding per year, per unit for tenant participation activities across all of its housing programs;
• Creating right to organize protections for HCV tenants; • Providing funds for organizing activities amongst HCV tenants; • Funding, separately from the money allocated to fund resident organizing activities, for resident capacity building programs throughout the country in all of its housing programs; • Creating opportunities for dialogue and centering experiences of tenants when considering how to improve the agency’s federal housing programs.

Principles for a Right to Organize for Housing Choice Voucher Tenants Below is a brief initial outline of principles HUD should consider when developing organizing protections in the HCV program. The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) and Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) will continue to engage our partners about the best practices for organizing Voucher participants and will update this proposal regularly. NHLP and PRRAC are committed to continuing the conversation about the importance of HUD-assisted participants having the right to organize and look forward to working with Voucher participants, organizers, and HUD on this issue.
• A Voucher tenant organization should be defined similarly to 24 CFR § 245.110—an organization that meets regularly, operates democratically, is inclusive of the local voucher participants, and is independent from the PHA and owners (POAs). o HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference.
 A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation. 25 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 26 The need for federal regulation around the right to organize and funding for organizing activities has been recognized by Congress. Our recommendations align with those delineated in the Tenant Empowerment Act, introduced by Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Maxine Waters. See “Tenant Empowerment Act of 2020” https://files.constantcontact.com/eee0e428701/f80f47a2-d611-4f27-8451-81cb2ac588ee.pdf Item 7.A
09/13/22
17 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) o All protections extended to Voucher tenant organizations should also be extended to any organizing committee(s).
o Individual tenants should be protected from any retaliation due to their participation in the tenant organization and, or participation in organizing activities.
o There should be an enforcement process for tenants and, or tenant organizations to submit allegations of interference or retaliation.
 HUD must prioritize enforcement of all tenant organizing regulations and respond swiftly to allegations of POA retaliation and interference.  HUD has a comprehensive enforcement process for the project-based rental assistance program that could be used as a model. See HUD H 2016-05.
 HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference.
• A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation.
o HUD should fund, separately from the money allocated to fund tenant organizing activities, tenant capacity building programs throughout the country.  PHAs should invite tenant serving community organizations to participate in the HCV orientation meetings to provide information about tenant organizing.
• Possible Role of Voucher Tenant Organizations
o Represents voucher participants in making demands to the PHA regarding the operation and policies of the local Voucher program, such as but not limited to, commenting on PHA plans and policies, Voucher utilization, payment standards, problem landlords, list of available units, or housing search assistance; o Appoint HCV household member(s) to serve on the PHA board in addition to existing tenant directors;27
o Appoint representative(s) to serve on the Resident Advisory Boards (RAB); o Encourage Voucher participants to join the HCV organization, including during the initial Voucher briefings and reaching out to persons on the waitlist;  HUD should mandate PHAs to provide notice to HCV tenants of the right to organize annually and amend the HCV tenancy addendum to include the right to organize.
 PHAs should also include information about the right to organize to participating and potential participate landlords; the owner’s obligation to not retaliate or interfere with the right to organize must be memorialized in HUD’s HCV HAP form.
o Educate tenants on issues and/or operations that affect tenant and their living environment;
o Engaging in capacity building activities, specifically developing capacity about the Voucher program;
o Formulate responses to changes in the operation and policies for the Voucher program, and;
27 Where the state law requires an executive to appoint board members, the HCV tenant group should have the right to recommend to the appointing official a candidate to serve in the position.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
18 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) o Organizing and advocating for federal, state and local housing policies and tenant protections, including but not limited to, source of income discrimination protections.
• Funding
o Voucher tenant organizing should be funded in a meaningful and consistent manner.28 Each year, per unit, HUD should make available funds for independent Housing Choice Voucher tenant organizations organized at the local, regional, or state level. Annually, the amount received per unit should incrementally increase.

If HUD decides to continue the practice of splitting the funding between the PHA and the resident groups, the majority of the money should go to the Voucher tenant organization(s).
o Organizing groups’ receipt of funding should not be contingent upon a Memorandum of Understanding or PHAs’ approval of the use of the funds. o Voucher tenant organizations should not be required to request the funding from the PHA and the funding should be automatically provided to the Voucher tenant organizing group.
o Voucher tenant organizations should have the discretion to pay their officers and members stipend and to hire paid organizers.
• Structure of Organization
o The regulations should not proscribe a specific organizational structure or mandate the organization have a specific number of officers. Being proscriptive in this manner may disqualify otherwise eligible groups because the group is just getting started, there are limited number of members who can serve as an officer, etc.
o Voucher tenant organizations should be permitted to form partnerships with other voucher tenant organizations, community organizations, organizers, and housing advocates to organize on issues important to Voucher participants. o All persons listed on leases should be able to participate in the tenant organization and organizing activities.
o Each organization should have the ability to decide who is eligible to vote. 28 If the $25 per unit per year funding for tenant participation had kept up with inflation, PHAs would receive $37.44 per unit per year for tenant participation activities. See Interim Instructions on Distribution and Use of Operating Subsidy Funds Received for Resident Participation Activities, Notice PIH 2001-03 (Jan. 18, 2001); Value of 2001 US Dollars Today, INFLATIONTOOL (Mar. 8, 2021, 1:10 PM), https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/2001-topresent-value?amount=25.

Item 7.A
09/13/22
19 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Written Comments (5194 : Section 8 Resident Advisory Board) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption 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 City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to amend 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. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112

10.A
Packet Pg. 401
1 City Council Meeting: September 13, 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 5 (b) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) 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. (f) 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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. (g) 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.
(h) 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.
(i) 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. (j) 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 7 (k) 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, 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 through

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 8 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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.A.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second 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. (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 and the year in which the permit expires. Each performer in a group shall obtain his or her own separate performance permit.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 14 (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 unless the community event encompasses one or more City blocks in which case the performance shall be conducted according to any administrative regulations issued under this Chapter.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 15 (c) No performer shall:
(1) Perform on the Third Street Promenade 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 (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 that same block.
(3) Perform on the Transit Mall 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 (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 that same block. (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.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 16 (7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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.
(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. (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.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 17 (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. (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

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 18 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 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) 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.
(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.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 19 (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 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.

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 20 (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 Section 3.36.180 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.

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

10.A.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) 21 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.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Street Performers 6.112 (5336 : Street Performers Ord - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption 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 City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to modify City sidewalk vending to allow for stationary vending within a 100- 500 foot perimeter of the Santa Monica Pier by permitted vendors. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-2nd-Vending

10.B
Packet Pg. 423
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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 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

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Vending (5337 : Vending Ordinance - Second Reading) 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 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

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Vending (5337 : Vending Ordinance - Second Reading) 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 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;

10.B.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Vending (5337 : Vending Ordinance - Second Reading) (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, 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.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Vending (5337 : Vending Ordinance - Second Reading) 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 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.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Vending (5337 : Vending Ordinance - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code section 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 City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to amend Santa Monica Municipal Code section 3.22 and add section 3.23 to allow shared mobility services to be provided under a contract agreement with the City.

The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility

10.C
Packet Pg. 429
1 City Council Meeting: September 13, 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 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

10.C.a
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) 2 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 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. (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.

10.C.a
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) 3 (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 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

10.C.a
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) 4 (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 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.

10.C.a
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) 5 (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. (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.

10.C.a
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) 6 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 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

10.C.a
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) 7 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.a
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Shared Mobility (5338 : Shared Mobility - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance amending the City’s Tenant Protection Laws
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to amend the City’s Tenant Protection Laws. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments

10.D
Packet Pg. 437
1 City Council Meeting September 13, 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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, marriage, pregnancy, disability, AIDS or occupancy by a minor child, immigration status,

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 7 source of income, gender identity, gender expression, 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.

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.

10.D.a
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) 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.D.a
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Tenant Amendments (5339 : Tenant Protection Laws - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption on an Ordinance to add Section 4.27.080 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to provide temporary eviction protection for residential tenants in rent-controlled units.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to add Section 4.27.080 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to provide temporary eviction protection for residential tenants in rent-controlled units. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

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

A. ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium

10.E
Packet Pg. 451
1 City Council Meeting September 13, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN 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

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

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) 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.E.a
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) 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.E.a
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) 4 WHEREAS, this ordinance is presented for adoption 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 and ongoing COVID-19 related states of emergency, 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 ordinance is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting vulnerable tenants subject to an extraordinary rent increase and unable to pay due to COVID-19 related financial distress, 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.
(2) “Protected Period Rent” means rent that became due between September 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023.

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) 5 (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 COVID-19 related financial distress. This eviction moratorium shall not apply to tenants for which their landlord who had previously given notice of a rent increase that exceeds three percent from September 1, 2022, and thereafter, who shall have modified that notice so that it does not exceed three percent and/or accepts an increase not to exceed three percent, during the Protected Period. As set forth in section (e) below, a tenant who has repaid unpaid rent prior to September 1, 2023, is permanently protected from eviction for nonpayment during the Protected Period. (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 COVID-19 related financial

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) 6 distress, the tenant shall provide notice and documentation to the landlord within 30 days after rent is due. A 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 COVID-19 related 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 COVID-19 related 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

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) 7 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.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney

10.E.a
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Eviction Moratorium (5341 : Eviction Moratorium - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 4.65.030
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to amend Santa Monica 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. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.

Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD-ord-2nd-LWO Exemption

10.F
Packet Pg. 459
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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
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

10.F.a
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-LWO Exemption (5342 : Living Wage Exemption - Second Reading) 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.F.a
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-LWO Exemption (5342 : Living Wage Exemption - Second Reading)

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, 2025.

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.F.a
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-LWO Exemption (5342 : Living Wage Exemption - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.G
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying SMMC 4.12.105 Concerning Amplified Sound in Ocean View Park
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

Executive Summary
At its meeting on August 23, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance to modify the City’s amplified sound ordinance, Section 4.12.105 of the Municipal Code, to prohibit amplified sound in Ocean View Park. The sidewalks adjacent to Barnard Way in the public right of way would not be considered part of the park for purposes of this ordinance. A map of Ocean View Park is attached to this staff report. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.

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

A. ORD-ord-2nd-Amplified Sound

10.G
Packet Pg. 463
2 of 2
B. Ocean View Park Parcel Map

10.G
Packet Pg. 464
1 of 3
City Council Meeting September 13, 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.G.a
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Amplified Sound (5355 : Ocean View Park Noise - Second Reading) 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.G.a
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Amplified Sound (5355 : Ocean View Park Noise - Second Reading) 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.G.a
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-Amplified Sound (5355 : Ocean View Park Noise - Second Reading) Notes
0 300 600
ft
This map of the City of Santa Monica has been provided for illustration purposes only. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the maps provided, however, some information may not be accurate. The City of Santa Monica ("City") provides this map on an "AS IS" basis. The City assumes no liability for damages arising from errors or omissions. THE MAPS ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

Do not make any business decisions based on this map before validating your decision with the appropriate City office.

Ocean View Park Parcel
Legend
Address Points
Resident
Business
Parcels
Street Name Labels
Street Name Labels
Aerial Imagery 2020 (Map Service)
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
Emilio Solano Los Angeles County Assessor 500 W Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected]

10.G.b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Ocean View Park Parcel Map (5355 : Ocean View Park Noise - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.H
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ramon Batista, Police Chief, Police Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend SMMC Section

4.08.097 to expand to other locations beyond Main Street and Downtown Recommended Action
Introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 4.08.097 to: (1) eliminate its location restrictions and expand enforcement to other areas of the City, including the City’s major transit corridors; and (2) clarify the definition of entrance.

Summary
The Police Department is asking City Council to adopt an ordinance expanding the existing sitting and lying in doorways prohibition to include other locations within Santa Monica beyond the Downtown and Main Street Districts to address ongoing access concerns by business owners throughout the City. SMMC 4.08.097 may be amended to expand its applicability to other locations. The amendments clarify that citations will occur only in the entrances or exits of buildings where the owner has requested enforcement and where notice has been provided. Also, the proposed amendment clarifies the definition of entrance to address ongoing concerns from the Police Department.

Discussion
SMMC Section 4.08.097 was first enacted in 2002 to address business owners’ concerns regarding an increasing number of individuals sitting, lying, or sleeping in doorways and blocking access to the entrances of their businesses in the Downtown

10.H
Packet Pg. 469
2 of 3
and Main Street areas of Santa Monica. Over the last several years, the City has received numerous complaints beyond these areas, including the City’s major transit corridors, such as Wilshire Blvd., Lincoln Blvd., Santa Monica Blvd., Broadway, Colorado Ave., and Pico Blvd. Given these contacts in other parts of the City, and after receiving increasing complaints from business owners in other locations in Santa Monica not currently covered by the ordinance, the Police Department is bringing forward potential amendments to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to address these concerns.

The proposed amendments presented to Council in this report would serve to protect access to property when owners and tenants are not present to protect it themselves. It would also protect public health by reducing sanitation risks and preserving aesthetics.

Additionally, it would eliminate the hazards attendant upon people sitting, sleeping, or lying in those unsafe locations. Importantly, the ordinance would not prohibit anyone from sitting or lying in a doorway during a medical emergency, nor would it not prohibit anyone from entering or standing in a doorway. Moreover, it would not generally prohibit activity on the public right-of-way and only prohibits sitting, lying, or sleeping where access to the entrance of building is blocked, in consideration of recent cases on this topic.

While the City deploys a comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness that includes providing urgently needed housing and connections to services, there will be occasions when the City requires a humane, lawful approach to assuring basic rules are followed, especially where access to buildings is blocked and employees and customers are prevented from safely entering. The proposed amendments in this report seek to balance these two objectives.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the proposed action.

10.H
Packet Pg. 470
3 of 3
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Proposed Ordinance Revising SMMC 4.08.097 - Expanded Locations B. Written Comments

10.H
Packet Pg. 471
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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 4.08.097 TO EXPAND TO

OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2002, City Council enacted Municipal Code Section

4.08.097 to prohibit sitting or lying within the Downtown and Main Street areas due, in part, to growing concerns in those locations by local business owners; and WHEREAS, within the last year, City Council and local business owners in other areas of the City, especially in the City’s transit corridors, have expressed growing concerns with the number of individuals who have been sitting or lying in the doorways of buildings in other areas of the City during the late night and early morning hours; and WHEREAS, during these hours, businesses are closed and, in most cases, no one is present on the premises to protect the property; and WHEREAS, persons working in businesses must remove individuals who are blocking ingress and egress to their buildings in the morning when they come to work; and

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Revising SMMC 4.08.097 - Expanded Locations (5270 : Expansion of Sit/Lie Ordinance) WHEREAS, persons sitting or lying in doorways overnight also often leave behind food and trash which block access to the buildings and also attract pests to these locations; and
WHEREAS, the doorways may give the illusion of shelter and security, but they are often poorly lit, have obstructed sight lines, are not safe places to sit, lie, or sleep, and are otherwise not suitable for human habitation because, among other things, there are no available restrooms or other sanitary facilities; and WHEREAS, City Council now wishes to expand the prohibition for sitting and lying in doorways to the City’s transit corridors to address these concerns; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments also seek to clarify the definition of “entrance” for ease of enforcement;

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

SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.097 Prohibition against sitting or lying in downtown and the Main Street areas doorways at night, is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.08.097 Prohibition against sitting or lying in downtown and the Main Street areas doorways at night.
(a) No person shall sit or lie down in any entrance to a building in the dDowntown, or Main Street, Broadway, Colorado Avenue, Lincoln Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Wilshire Boulevard areas between the hours of eleven p.m. and seven a.m. if that entrance is posted with a sign prohibiting such

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Revising SMMC 4.08.097 - Expanded Locations (5270 : Expansion of Sit/Lie Ordinance) conduct. “Downtown” means the area bounded by and including the east side of Ocean Avenue, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard, the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, and the south side of Pico Boulevard. “Main Street area” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Neilsen Way, the north side of Pico Boulevard, the east side of Main Street from Pico Boulevard to Strand Street, the north side of Strand Street to Second Street, the east side of Second Street and the City’s southern border. “Entrance” means the entire area between the outer edge of an entrance to a building and the exterior door and includes the entry way, doorway or vestibule. The prohibition contained in this Section shall not apply to any person sitting or lying down in any entrance to a building due to a medical emergency.
(b) As used in this Section, the following items shall have the following meanings:
(1) “Downtown” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Ocean Avenue, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard, the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, and the south side of Pico Boulevard.
(2) “Main Street area” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Neilsen Way, the north side of Pico Boulevard, the east side of Main Street from Pico Boulevard to Strand Street, the north side of Strand Street to Second Street, the east side of Second Street and the City’s southern border. (3) “Broadway” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(4) “Colorado Avenue” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Revising SMMC 4.08.097 - Expanded Locations (5270 : Expansion of Sit/Lie Ordinance) (5) “Lincoln Boulevard” means the area bounded by the north side of Wilshire Blvd. and the City’s southern border.
(6) “Pico Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(7) “Santa Monica Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(8) “Wilshire Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue to the City’s eastern border.
(9) “Building” means any building, other than a building used for solely residential purposes, located in the areas specified in sections (b)(1)-(b)(8). (10) “Entrance” means the entire area between the outer edge of any entrance to a building and any exterior door and includes entry ways, doorways, vestibules, alcoves, and areas located under cantilevers.
(b)(c) Any person violating the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars 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. (d) The prohibition contained in this Section shall not apply to any person sitting or lying down in any entrance to a building due to a medical emergency.

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

10.H.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Revising SMMC 4.08.097 - Expanded Locations (5270 : Expansion of Sit/Lie Ordinance) 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.H.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Revising SMMC 4.08.097 - Expanded Locations (5270 : Expansion of Sit/Lie Ordinance) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10 H. Doorways Ordinance

EXTERNAL
Strongly favor. Must expand all crime deterrence programs to all areas of the City.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Unaffiliated moderate
Santa Monica 90403
Item 10.H
09/13/22
1 of 1 Item 10.H
09/13/22

10.H.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written Comments (5270 : Expansion of Sit/Lie Ordinance) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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: Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Arts Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2022.

Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Applicant List
B. Written Comments

16.A
Packet Pg. 478
Revised 9/08/22 at 4:30pm
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Arts Commission
Name Application Date
Kathleen D. Benjamin 9/06/2022
Kara Fox 6/15/2022
Ethan Karetsky 6/26/2022
Bren C. Petrakos 6/21/2022
Jeff Swimmer 5/10/2021
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 4
*Incumbents listed in red

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Applicant List (5367 : Appointment to the Arts Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: In support of appointment of appointment of Kathleen Benjamin to the Arts Commission From: Michael Masucci <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:35 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Shannon Daut <[email protected]>; Laurie Yehia <[email protected]>; Michael Baroff <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: In support of appointment of appointment of Kathleen Benjamin to the Arts Commission Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing I support of the candidacy of Kathleen Benjamin to the Arts Commission. Although I have never yet met Ms. Benjamin, her reputation precedes her.

Ms. Benjamin is known within the community as an active and positive voice for change, justice and civil discourse. Her deep appreciation for the arts is acknowledged to be coupled with her understanding of the vital role that the history and personal narratives of our diverse communities play in building a better city.

I hope that you will appoint her to the Arts Commission, so that we can benefit from her experience and insights.

Your truly,
Michael J. Masucci
Chair, Santa Monica Arts Commission
Item 16.A
09/13/22
1 of 1 Item 16.A
09/13/22

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments (5367 : Appointment to the Arts Commission (5 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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: Recommendation to accept Eve Brosnahan's resignation from the Personnel Board 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.B
Packet Pg. 481
1 Esterlina Lugo
Subject: RE: Personnel Board Resignation
From: eve mullenbenefits.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Lori Gentles <[email protected]>
Subject: Personnel Board Resignation

EXTERNAL
Hello councilmembers,
I am tendering my resignation as a Personnel Board member effective the end of this month. I can attend the September board meeting as my last.

I’m experiencing an unusually busy time and have been on the board for several years ‐ it’s time to give others a chance to participate.

I’ve loved being a part of the board and will carry the experience with me.

Thank you for allowing me to be of service all these years – I’ve really enjoyed it.

Best wishes in filling the position and all else in the city! Warm regards,
Eve Brosnahan

16.B.a
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Resignation Email (5366 : Personnel Board Resignation (2 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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 Councilmembers Brock and McCowan that Council direct staff to explore establishing a large-format digital signage pilot program at Santa Monica Place that supports placemaking and stimulates economic recovery efforts in the Downtown. The pilot program should include: (1) a public art component; (2) community messaging and promotion of Santa Monica; and (3) be supported by a revenue-sharing content opportunity to support community programs and services.

Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.C
Packet Pg. 483
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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 Councilmember Brock that the City waive approximately $1,500 in rental fees for the use of the Guest House Veranda Rooms at the Annenberg Beach House on October 22, 2022, to host a meeting of the California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners & Board Members Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council

16.D
Packet Pg. 484
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 13, 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 Negrete and Brock that the City Council endorse and authorize the City Manager to transmit the attached letter requesting that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors support and assist the City of Santa Monica in relocating the Harm Reduction Syringe Services Program from its parks and open spaces to a service rich environment that aligns with the City’s Four Pillar Strategy to address homelessness. The City Manager is also being asked to transmit this letter to candidates for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Senator Bob Hertzberg and City Councilmember, Lindsey Horvath.

Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 20220913Safe Syringe 16 Item Attachment
B. Written Comments

16.E
Packet Pg. 485
September 14, 2022
Sent Via Email
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Bord Executive Office, Room 383
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Board Chair Mitchell and Honorable Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, The City of Santa Monica has an established track record of deploying a comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing homelessness. More specifically, Santa Monica has implemented a Four Pillar Strategy to address homelessness and prevent residents from becoming unhoused.

Immediate and consistent engagement combined with services, treatment, and housing is core to our local strategy. The following outlines our Four Pillar Strategy:

1. Prevent housed Santa Monicans from becoming homeless and increase the supply of affordable housing;

2. Address the behavioral health needs of vulnerable residents;

3. Maintain equitable access to safe, fun, and healthy open spaces; and

4. Strengthen regional capacity to address homelessness.

Over the years, implementing this strategy has resulted in the production of affordable housing, deployment of multi-disciplinary outreach teams, and the provision of rental assistance and legal services to tenants who are at risk of eviction. In addition, new innovations have been implemented or are forthcoming. Examples include:
• Our Fire Department’s Community Response Unit, which provides an alternative response to 9-1-1 calls for service to better address the needs of vulnerable populations; and • A partnership with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to bring forward a Therapeutic Transport Van staffed with behavioral health professionals and people with lived experiences who offer supportive resources for non-violent mental health-related calls for service.

The City has committed $400,000 to this initiative.

Clearly, the City of Santa Monica is committed to addressing the issue of homelessness in a wholistic and compassionate manner.

In alignment with our Four Pillar Strategy outlined above, Pillar 3 reflects the City’s desire to maintain equitable access to safe, fun, and healthy spaces. Because roughly 70% of Santa Monicans are renters, our community relies on the City’s parks and open spaces as they do not have access to private open space. This includes families with young children, as well as seniors. It has come to our attention that the Venice Family Clinic under the purview of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, Substance Abuse and Prevention and Control Division is providing clean needles to individuals in our parks and

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: 20220913Safe Syringe 16 Item Attachment (5365 : Safe Syringe Program) open spaces through the Harm Reduction Syringe Services Program. We understand our limited regulatory authority, however, rather than implement this program in our parks and open spaces, we seek your assistance in immediately moving this program to a service rich environment (preferably indoors) where individuals in need of substance abuse, mental health, and other services can coordinate and work directly with service providers. We have been apprised that our staff has been involved in constructive conversations with the County and we want to make sure you are aware of this partnership and collaboration. As a next step, our staff will be asking the County for a formal proposal and it is our aspiration that, at a minimum, what materializes is a pilot project in which the County places restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which the Harm Reduction Syringe Services Program is administered that aligns with the City’s strategy to address homelessness.

Over the years, the City has developed strong partnerships with the County. We desire to build on this foundation to pursue new approaches to provide the services that are needed for those struggling with substance abuse. Your support is appreciated as our staff continues to work with the County.

Sincerely,
cc: David White, City Manager
Doug Sloan, City Attorney
Gary Tsai, Division Director, Substance Abuse Prevention and Control Supervisor Candidate, Senator Bob Hertzberg
Supervisor Candidate, City Councilmember Lindsey Horvath

16.E.a
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: 20220913Safe Syringe 16 Item Attachment (5365 : Safe Syringe Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Item 16E Surreptitious Drug Needle Exchange in SM Parks

EXTERNAL
News Article: “City Council wants needle programs removed from public parks” https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://smdp.com/2022/09/12/city‐council‐wants‐needle‐programs‐removed‐from‐ public‐parks/__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oS6qgwUjllW4oOYW3yGKFEHQuI28IxHh9KQvtUYOoHO8uZuRI1EuajUWLC‐ zHjzdDWA5IWK25eCCQ3oXRv9ENTu50P3nkt4$
First, I guess this discovery puts the lie to any assertion that surrounding jurisdictions don't dump their problems on Santa Monica.

Second, please strengthen the Council’s draft letter, as presented in Council Agenda Item 16E.

Suggestions: a) include a reminder that public possession and distribution of drug paraphernalia is a crime and violators in Santa Monica will be prosecuted to the fullest by the City; b) demand that District 3 candidates Horvath and Hertzberg state their position on using Santa Monica public parks in this manner, so our voters can respond c) insist the BoS identify all those who made or participated in this surreptitious, unilateral decision so those individuals can be held accountable for such arrogant negligence.

Finally, please publish the City’s final letter and document all responses and/or non‐responses to it.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Unaffiliated moderate
Santa Monica 90403
Item 16.E
09/13/22
1 of 2 Item 16.E
09/13/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments (5365 : Safe Syringe Program) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kent Downing <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: County needle distribution agenda item

EXTERNAL
Council and City Manager White,
I read in yesterday’s edition of the daily press that tonight’s agenda includes an item to ask the county to implement changes to the needle distribution that is currently happening in our parks. The article cites as one reason that a recent death in palisades park was the result of overdose. I know you’re all getting hammered from residents about homelessness and the increasingly visible problem of addiction but I implore you not to ask the county to reduce the number of locations or times needle distribution is available. The evidence is crystal clear on this, it will not reduce IV drug use, overdose incidents, or deaths. The only thing that making needles less readily available will do is increase the rates of infectious disease‐specifically HIV and Hepatitis. I applaud your efforts to include additional services for those who need them, coordination of care and readily available rehab and mental health services will have a positive impact on use, overdoses, and deaths. I’m sympathetic to the fact that everyone on the council and in the community needs a win, but speaking as a recovering addict who has first hand experience as well as extensive knowledge of the existing body of research on this subject, reducing access to clean needles won’t be the win you seek. It will only serve to increase Hepatitis and HIV transmission which, in addition to the obvious health implications, brings a whole host of costs and additional problems with it. Please reconsider the unintended consequences that this change will have and work with the experts in the county health department on finding a solution that doesn’t reduce access.

Thank you for your consideration.

KD
Item 16.E
09/13/22
2 of 2 Item 16.E
09/13/22

16.E.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments (5365 : Safe Syringe Program)

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 13, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
September 13, 2022