10.B.a
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 3.23 RemotelyControlledPDDOrdinance 11.15.2022 FINAL [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Update 5 requirements: (1) non-prohibited devices shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicycles; (2) non-prohibited devices shall obey all signs and signals governing traffic and pedestrians; (3) non-prohibited devices shall not interfere with the maintenance of paths of travel for persons with disabilities; (4) non-prohibited devices may not transport waste or hazardous materials (including flammables or ammunition); (5) non-prohibited devices shall be equipped with headlights that operate at night, sunrise, and sunset; and (6) each non-prohibited device shall bear, in markings of a size sufficient to be clearly legible to passing vehicles and pedestrians, a unique identifier for the device together with the name and contact information of the device’s operator.
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inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.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.B.a
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 3.23 RemotelyControlledPDDOrdinance 11.15.2022 FINAL [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Update 6 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.B.a
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 3.23 RemotelyControlledPDDOrdinance 11.15.2022 FINAL [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Update 1 City Council Meeting: November 15, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.12.1055 TO
EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ON THE DEPLOYMENT AND OPERATION OF
AUTONOMOUS DELIVERY VEHICLES OR DEVICES ON SIDEWALKS AND
PEDESTRIAN PATHS OF TRAVEL
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2656 (CCS), an Emergency Ordinance establishing a one-year moratorium on the deployment and operation of autonomous delivery vehicles or devices on sidewalks and pedestrian paths of travel; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2683 (CCS), extending the moratorium to December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the proliferation around the country of delivery services using driverless, electrified vehicles devices appears to be part of a broader trend of partnerships between robotics firms and goods retailers to deliver goods from a hub to private property via public rights of way; and
WHEREAS, in cities where autonomous delivery vehicles or devices are currently in use, such use has been permitted after extensive consideration, granted on a trial basis, and only after operators agree to various requirements with the aim of evaluating and regulating important areas such as direct human supervision of the delivery vehicles or devices, limitations on speed, limitations on types of infrastructure on which vehicles or devices may operate, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, limitations on operation in high-risk corridors, limitations on the number of operating vehicles or
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 3.23_EmergencyOrdinance ExtendingAutonomousDeliveryVehicleMoratorium_11.15.2022 Final [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission 2 devices, requirements for liability coverage, requirements for operational data disclosures, operation in low visibility weather, and interactions with surroundings and terrain; and
WHEREAS, deployment and operation of autonomous delivery vehicles in the City by one company eliciting numerous complaints from members of the public that the vehicles obstructed sidewalks and created difficulties as people attempted to navigate around the devices; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed public safety concerns about the unregulated operation of autonomous delivery vehicles or devices on City sidewalks and pedestrian paths of travel, particularly where an infinite number of companies can deploy an infinite number of vehicles or devices, clogging City sidewalks and pedestrian paths of travel, inundating City code enforcement officers, and create a public safety hazard; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, City Council considered on first reading an ordinance permanently prohibiting operation and deployment of autonomous personal delivery vehicles devices, however, the ordinance will not become effective until approximately two weeks after the expiration of the moratorium as extended by Ordinance Number ____; and
WHEREAS, based on the aforementioned preambles, and the staff report accompanying this ordinance, it is necessary to adopt an emergency ordinance to extend the moratorium until the end of January 2023, so that the moratorium does not expire prior to the effective date of the ordinance establishing a permanent prohibition on the deployment and operation of autonomous personal delivery vehicles and devices; and
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 3.23_EmergencyOrdinance ExtendingAutonomousDeliveryVehicleMoratorium_11.15.2022 Final [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission 3 WHEREAS, under City of Santa Monica Charter Article VI, Section 615, any ordinance declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health or safety and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by at least five affirmative votes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that the unregulated deployment and operation of potentially infinite autonomous delivery vehicles or devices on City sidewalks and pedestrian paths of travel will result in an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and, as a result, the adoption of an ordinance continuing the moratorium is necessary as both an emergency preservation and emergency preventative measure.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 3.12.1055 is hereby amended as follows:
3.12.1055 Autonomous Delivery Device or Vehicle
Beginning on October 28, 2020 and ending on January 31, 2023 December 31 , 2022, no person shall deploy or operate an autonomous delivery device or vehicle on City sidewalks or pedestrian paths of travel. ‘Autonomous delivery device or vehicle’ means a motorized device used to transport items, products, or any other materials on City sidewalks or pedestrian paths of travel for commercial purposes, and guided or controlled without a human operator sitting or standing upon and actively and physically controlling the movements of the device or vehicle.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 3.23_EmergencyOrdinance ExtendingAutonomousDeliveryVehicleMoratorium_11.15.2022 Final [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission 4 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 affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. Pursuant to Sections 615 and 619 of the City Charter, for the reasons stated in the recitals above, the staff report accompanying this ordinance, oral and written testimony received by the City Council, and City Council discussion, the City Council declares this ordinance to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, and safety, with the result that this ordinance shall be introduced and adopted at the same meeting and shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 3.23_EmergencyOrdinance ExtendingAutonomousDeliveryVehicleMoratorium_11.15.2022 Final [Revision 1] (5299 : Zero Emission November 14, 2022
RE: Item 10-B - Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tempore McCowan, and City Councilmembers, Coco has been thrilled to be part of Santa Monica’s Zero Emission Delivery Zone program and we strongly support City Staff’s recommendation to adopt the ordinance before you tonight, which will allow us to continue to provide more affordable, sustainable, and reliable deliveries to Santa Monica local businesses.
It’s been exciting for us to support Santa Monica’s city-leading efforts to reduce emissions. We have provided local deliveries for over 20 Santa Monica businesses, including: Alfalfa, Ashland Hill, Bangkok West Thai, Bay City Deli, Bru’s Wiffle, Jinya Ramen Bar, Jinky’s Cafe, Lotus Dim Sum & Dumpling House, Sweetfin Poke, Sweet Rose Creamery, Umami Burger and more. Short distance deliveries make up a significant portion of merchants' delivery volume and there is no reason to have these orders carried by fossil fuel powered cars.
Since the launch of the ZEDZ in Santa Monica we have completed over ten thousand deliveries without any serious problems. Had the same deliveries been made by the average car, almost 15,000 lb of CO2 would have been needlessly emitted. Restaurants have found us especially useful during these challenging economic times, as we provide a more affordable local delivery solution (often less than half the cost of car-based delivery companies). Residents appreciate us because we provide contact-free and sustainable deliveries, giving comfort to those worried about COVID exposure and reducing the number of delivery cars double parked in our bike lanes and polluting our air. Earlier this year, Fast Company named Coco one of the 10 most innovative robotic companies – specifically for “making robot delivery work for small businesses”. Please see the attached article.
We look forward to our continued collaboration with City Staff and our local business partners to help keep delivery affordable and reduce traffic and Item 10.B
11/15/22
1 of 3 Item 10.B
11/15/22
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Written Comment (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Update and Follow-up Actions) emissions in Santa Monica. Please support City Staff’s recommendation to maintain and extend the benefits of PDDs as demonstrated through the ZEDZ pilot program.
Thank you,
Zach Rash
CEO and Co-Founder
Coco
Item 10.B
11/15/22
2 of 3 Item 10.B
11/15/22
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Written Comment (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Update and Follow-up Actions) …
Source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90724464/most-innovative-companies-robotics-2022 Item 10.B
11/15/22
3 of 3 Item 10.B
11/15/22
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Written Comment (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Update and Follow-up Actions) Zero Emissions Delivery Zone Pilot Program
Trevor Thomas | Sr. Transportation Planner | SaMoDOT, Mobility Division November 15, 2022
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program 2 Presentation Overview
• Background information &
definitions • Work done through the
Zero Emission Delivery
Zone (ZEDZ)
• Types of interventions • Goals of the ZEDZ
• Program findings • Staff Recommendations
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Ze ro Em ission De live ry
Zone : Ba c kg round
Inform a tion • Creation of EV-only loading zones • Video-based, privacy-protected data collection around these zones • Testing delivery technologies with program partners • Sidewalk delivery bots (PDDs) • Zero emission vehicles in the roadway • Electric cargo vans • E-cargo bikes and e
-scooters
• Electric box trucks
3 10.B.d
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Goa ls of the Ze ro
Em ission De live ry Zone • Provide local benefits • Define sustainable delivery and curbside policy
• Demonstrate policy
approaches for other cities
and companies
Safety & Order
Environmental Sustainability
4 10.B.d
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program Le ssons Le a rne d • Delivery operations displaced emissions. • EV-only loading zones have value as signal. • Santa Monica’s built environment is conducive to green delivery…but more
could be done to facilitate delivery logistics.
• Sidewalk delivery bots are a net positive for
the community.
• Curb cameras provide useful and privacy-
protected data.
5 10.B.d
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program 6 Staff Recommendations
Move Forward with Robotic Sidewalk Delivery
• Adopt permanent ordinance permitting and regulating
delivery bots
• Make permanent the ban on autonomous delivery bots
• Adopt emergency ordinance to continue moratorium
on autonomous delivery until ordinance takes hold
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program 7 Staff Recommendations
Continue with Curbside Cameras
• Extend agreement with Automotus through December
31, 2024
• Obtain valuable understanding of our curbs
• Maintain strong data protections currently in place
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program 8 Staff Recommendation Recap
• Adopt PDD ordinance • Adopt emergency ordinance
continuing moratorium on
autonomous PDDs
• Extend agreement with
Automotus
10.B.d
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5299 : Zero Emission Delivery Zone Pilot Program
13.A
November 15, 2022
Council Meeting: November 15, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David White, City Manager, Records & Elections Services Department Date: November 15, 2022
13.A Request of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission to Receive and Review the Reports Provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Recommended Action
The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission has prepared a series of reports and recommendations concerning public safety in Santa Monica, most recently focused on complaint investigations and the status of the Santa Monica Police Department’s implementations of the reforms recommended by the OIR Group following their in-depth after action report concerning the events of May 31, 2020. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the reports provided by the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission.
13.A
Packet Pg. 472
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Derek Devermont, Chair of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Subject: Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission Annual Update In February 2020, Council voted to create the Santa Monica Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC). PSROC was designed to provide civilian oversight of SMPD and to evaluate how the city approaches law enforcement. Since its inception, PSROC has created numerous committees, held multiple hearings, and submitted six reports to Council, two of which are attached to this memo. These reports were authored by either the Commission or the Commission's Inspector General (IG).
These reports addressed the following:
1) SMPD's response to the OIR 5/31/2020 report-Commission Authored 2) SMPD's complaints process-Commission Authored
3) SMPD policy surrounding and use of bodycam technology-Commission Authored 4) SMPD's possession and use of military equipment pursuant to AB 481-Commission Authored
5) OIR report on SMPD's progress in implementing IG proposed reforms-IG Authored 6) OIR audit of SMPD complaint process-IG authored
This memo will focus on a few of these topics.
POLICIES AND USE OF BODYCAM TECHNOLOGY
SMPD uses impressive bodycam technology. Perhaps most impressive is how a single officer activating his camera will start the cameras of other officers in the area. This prevents officers, intentionally or unintentionally, from failing to activate their cameras.
PSROC proposed reforms to remove undue officer discretion regarding what is recorded. The Commission heard from officers that they are trained to decide when to turn a camera off in situations involving witnesses or victims. PSROC feels this discretion should be eliminated.
SMPD responds with a genuine and valid concern for the privacy of witnesses and victims. This privacy, however, is already protected under current law. Cases involving sex crimes, minors,
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5364 : PSROC Reports) etc., are not subject to public record requests. Additionally, such footage is usually subject to a court's protective order preventing the distribution of protected materials.
PSROC also learned prosecutors prefer to have witness/victim interviews recorded. With the passage of time, memories fade and become warped. Bodycam footage refreshes the memory of those that would testify and prevents inconsistencies that defense lawyers will use. As court cases drag on, a preserved video record prevents the downfalls of time.
There are instances when an officer should not have his camera running (bathroom breaks, interacting with family, etc.), but PSROC feels the cameras should be running absent these circumstances.
PSROC offers drafts of reports to SMPD for input. SMPD wrote a written response to PSROC's report on bodycams and submitted it to Council. It is important to note they responded to a PSROC draft never submitted to Council. Instead, SMPD replied to an initial PSROC draft provided solely for input. The final PSROC draft submitted to the Council addressed many of SMPD's concerns.
COMPLAINTS
PSROC had many hearings on SMPD's complaint process. Council was provided a report with the Commission's findings. The work done in this area shows how SMPD and PSROC working together can benefit the city.
In PSROC's hearings, it was discovered SMPD lacked a record-keeping/tracking system for complaints that were handled informally or quickly dismissed by a supervisor. If an intended complainer was turned away by an officer, a record was not kept of the interaction nor the attempt to file a complaint. The absence of a system prevented effective auditing and oversight.
To SMPD's credit, they have acknowledged the gap and taken great strides to fill it. SMPD has acquired new software that will track every complaint and ensure interested parties within the department and outside are notified of progress. Additionally, all complainers will be provided a form with a reference number to draft their complaints. Once completed, the complainer is provided a copy of the form for future reference,
SMPD and PSROC worked together in this specific circumstance, and the community benefitted.
PSROC still believes areas of concern remain. The Commission tasked the IG with auditing ten complaints to see if they were processed and adjudicated in a manner that was fair to the complainer, the community, AND THE OFFICER. It is important to note that many of the audited complaints were received under the leadership of a previous Chief of Police.
The IG wrote a report, attached to this memo, and found areas of concern. PSROC found the time taken to process complaints to be inexcusably long. Most took ten months or longer.
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5364 : PSROC Reports) Witnesses and complainers were only contacted then. As a result, the potential for faded memories, interest, and loss of contact with relevant parties increases exponentially.
Also, relevant evidence was not obtained or kept in the file. Video footage, pictures, and other records were inexplicably left out of the file preventing an accurate audit of the fairness of SMPD's conclusions.
Perhaps most troubling is the limiting of the scope of the complaint. If an investigator found misconduct by another officer not initially subject to the complaint during the investigation of a complaint, no additional action was taken to hold the malfeasant officer accountable. A glaring example is in the report of a seemingly intentional attempt to hide the use of force by filing it inappropriately in an area where no one would notice. When it was discovered the use of force wasn't filed as a "use of force," the officer who errored was not held accountable.
AB 481-POSSESSION AND USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
In response to Council's referral, PSROC investigated SMPD's possession and use of military equipment. Commissioner Angela Scott and Vice Chair Centeno jointly wrote a report that found possession of all AB 481 equipment in SMPD's arsenal appropriate.
Of particular concern was the famous "Bearcat." This is an intimidating vehicle, and the Commission questioned whether a less militaristic alternative could serve the purpose and function of the bearcat. It was discovered that alternative vehicles would cost twice as much as the bearcat, require an additional vehicle, and couldn't provide the medical services of the bearcat. SMPD was forthright and responsive.
MAY 31, 2020 OIR REPORT
Recently, the IG was tasked with auditing SMPD's progress in implementing the recommended reforms found in the previous OIR 5/31/2020 report. Some recommended reforms were implemented, progress was made on implementing more, and some still needed to be satisfactory. The IG report is attached to this memo.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations: Council should direct the City Manager to work with SMPD to:
1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to completion within 90 days.
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5364 : PSROC Reports)
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the events of May 2020.
PSROC looks forward to making a presentation on 11/15/2022 and will be open to answering any questions. Please feel free to contact me in advance should a concern arise.
Derek Devermont
Chair-PSROC
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment A: PSROC November 15 Council Presentation_ (5364 : PSROC Reports) 1 City of Santa Monica
Inspector General’s REPORT on SMPD
Complaint Investigation Process
October 2022
Michael Gennaco
Stephen Connolly
Teresa Magula
Julie Ruhlin
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 2 323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA
90293
OIRGroup.com
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 3 Introduction
At its regular public meeting in February of 2022, the Santa Monica’s “Public Safety Reform and Oversight Committee” (“PSROC”) endorsed an audit project that had been recommended by Michael Gennaco of OIR Group, in his capacity as Inspector General.
The project was meant to supplement the work that the Committee had already initiated in learning about the mechanics of the public complaint process as administered by the Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”).
The Committee has produced a report and several recommendations as a result of knowledge it gleaned from members’ interactions with SMPD personnel. These interactions related to protocol and procedure with regard to intake, triage, and investigation of complaints, and the Committee identified areas where it thought the processes could become more effective. In proposing an audit of actual cases completed recently by the Department’s Internal Affairs unit, the Inspector General sought to add to the foundation that the Committee had established through its own efforts.
Specifically, an audit by the Inspector General was intended to add two elements to the Committee’s project. One was a perspective drawn from OIR Group members’ extensive experience with oversight and “best practices” for administrative investigations. The other was a substantive, qualitative review, based on the IG’s unique access to confidential SMPD files and records pursuant to the City Ordinance.
An assessment of recently completed cases offered a concrete way to evaluate the effectiveness of the process through the prism of actual complaints and allegations of misconduct involving SMPD personnel.1
Pursuant to the proposal and the Committee’s authorization, the IG reviewed 10 complete investigation files that were provided by the Department. These materials included the following:
• The memo prepared by the investigator that summarized the evidence; • The transcribed interviews of the complainants, witnesses, and subjects of each case;
1 One aspect of the complaint process not addressed in this audit is how “complaints” that are not referred for a formal administrative investigation are addressed by SMPD. As noted below, that issue is sufficiently weighty to comprise a potential future IG audit project.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 4 • Any documents or other evidence relating to the underlying incident (including police reports, photos, body-worn camera and other recordings); and • The written analysis by SMPD executive-level decision makers as to outcomes.
We evaluated the cases along a range of criteria. These included investigative scope, thoroughness, timeliness, objectivity, accountability, remedial steps (if necessary), and overall legitimacy.
The following Report about those evaluations hopes to provide insight in a couple of ways: first by offering a window into the specific allegations that SMPD addressed, and then, based on those particular examples, by drawing larger conclusions – and recommendations – about the process itself. Accordingly, we provide a factual summary for eight of the ten investigations that we reviewed, in terms of both the incident at issue and the Department’s administrative response.2 The ultimate point was not to validate or question or otherwise re-litigate the actual outcomes of these complaints, though we do share our impressions of the findings. Instead, it was to use the cases as a concrete basis for assessing the process more broadly.
In doing so, we sought to identify systemic issues that may warrant attention or revision for the sake of enhancing future effectiveness. Individual issues that arose, as well as collective tendencies we saw across several cases, are discussed with accompanying recommendations.
A few notes are warranted about our interactions with SMPD in conjunction with this project. First, we appreciate the complete cooperation we received from Department supervisory staff with regard to accessing the necessary materials. Next, it bears mentioning that a prior administration was at the helm during the time these matters were investigated. Our hope is that current leadership will reinforce the strengths we identify and embrace opportunities to make positive adjustments, and we have reason to believe this will occur. Finally, we are grateful for thoughtful feedback that the Department provided, and that helped to clarify and otherwise improve this Report.
In terms of an “executive summary” of our findings, we noted a mix of strengths and limitations that we discuss below. One striking aspect of the review was that accumulating the cases for our evaluation required the Department to go back in time – some of the complaints we assessed were raised in 2018. 2 After our initial review, we learned that two of the cases we examined were also the subject of ongoing civil litigation. At the request of the City Attorney, our discussion of those cases will be deferred until the conclusion of that litigation, but the intent is to discuss in an addendum to this public report what we learned from those cases at that time.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 5 The potential causes of this low volume of formal investigations are various. The simplest and most encouraging would be that SMPD rarely provokes the dissatisfaction or grievance of the people it serves and encounters in Santa Monica. We don’t discount this possibility, and agency leadership informs us that it is common for the Department’s self-initiated misconduct investigations to exceed public complaints in the course of a given year. At the same time, we know the pandemic reduced the number of overall contacts by a considerable amount. And we have worked in jurisdictions in which a higher number of complaints is at least partially a function of heightened engagement and receptivity to public feedback as opposed to greater levels of dysfunction. In short, SMPD’s numbers were objectively small, in a way that is best understood as a notable if only partial metric of overall community satisfaction,
We also take note of the potential relevance to this issue of the Committee’s formal findings about the complaint process in its report from earlier this year, particularly those that relate to the initial screening that occurs at the outset of the process. This sometimes results in the resolution of a complaint without the involvement of Internal Affairs.3 We agree that this process merits further inquiry and potential adjustment to existing protocols.
As for the investigations themselves, we noted several strengths. The completed files were generally well-organized and reflected a methodical, thorough investigative approach. Investigative work was often resourceful in gathering evidence from available sources and reconstructing the events underlying the respective complaints.
Complainants were treated respectfully and interviewed with patience and objectivity.
Interviews of the officers who were the focal point of allegations were often impressive in their depth and effectiveness in addressing the key issues. And the analysis that went into consideration of completed cases was consistently thoughtful; it showed a willingness to engage with the issues and reach appropriate conclusions in most of the individual instances we studied.
We were also impressed that the Department goes to the time and trouble of transcribing interviews. In our experience, most agencies are content to rely on recordings and investigator summaries, but the transcripts make evaluation of the actual content of statements much more efficient (and therefore more likely to happen when decision-makers are assessing completed files).
3 Per the Committee’s report, this can be because the handling supervisor “defuses” the issue without a formal complaint being filed, or because of a determination that the conduct as described does not constitute a policy violation.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 6 Overall, we found that the complaints were taken seriously, investigated skillfully, and evaluated thoughtfully by Department management. Naturally, we noted individual concerns with specific elements of the reviews, but these often reflected the close scrutiny of the review more than substantial problems that undermined the cases themselves.
We also found some “common denominators” that were more substantive in nature, and thus potentially applicable to future investigative effectiveness.
The first of these related to the time of completion for the investigations. All of them took at least several months to finalize, and most ran up to – or over – the one-year statute of limitation which constitutes the eligibility period for California agencies to impose discipline against peace officers who have violated policy. As we discuss, this is problematic in a few ways, even when officers are cleared of all allegations and therefore not subject to disciplinary consequences. We note in fairness to the Department that staffing challenges and COVID impacts have been a factor here, and that the current leadership team has not only acknowledged that “sooner is better” but has implemented steps to better monitor the progress of open cases. This is encouraging, and we assume it will pay dividends.
The next concerns the completeness of the files. Specific evidence was sometimes not included for review, even when it is referenced as having been in existence. The Department’s ability to “show its work” is important to the soundness of its recordkeeping and the underlying process itself.
The third relates to the scope of the Department’s investigative inquiries. While the core elements of individual citizen complaints were generally processed, it is often the case that such investigations reveal other shortcomings or performance issues that were not specifically mentioned by the complainant as a concern. (These might include a deficient report or a failure to follow protocol for notifying supervisors – issues that the complainant would not even be aware of.) These would sometimes be noted, but not addressed within the context of the investigation itself. As we explain, even when such matters don’t rise to the level of a policy violation, they often merit attention, and we are not sure whether SMPD is taking full advantage of these opportunities to use the complaint process as a “feedback loop” to improve future operations.
We hope this report and attendant recommendations will serve as a complement to the PSROC’s work in this arena.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 7 Systemic Recommendations
Internal Deadlines for Completion of Internal Investigations As noted above, another recurring issue within the cases we reviewed related to the pace of completion. Investigative work itself often extended for months beyond the intake of the complaint. In other instances, unexplained delays at the executive level extended the process of final resolution. The year-long statute of limitations period for administering discipline is a deadline, not a suggestion, and for many reasons the appropriate investigation and response will occur in a much more efficient manner.
RECOMMENDATION 1: SMPD should develop internal deadlines for completion of internal affairs investigations of no longer than 180 days and require approval from chain of command for any extensions with reasons articulated for any delay.
RECOMMENDATION 2: SMPD leadership should commit to the timely review of completed complaint cases and should engage in prompt decision-making and remediation as needed.
Items missing in investigative files.
While the files that we reviewed were well organized, each was missing materials that one would expect to find in them. As a result, we were not able to even know whether such materials were generated, let alone review the quality of any materials produced.
It is incumbent that SMPD adjust their protocols and practices to ensure that such materials are included in the investigative file.
With regard to closing letters, we were advised by the Department that they typically are not included in the file but scanned and kept in a different file. Even if there may be value in retaining copies of closing letters in another file, a copy should be inserted in the investigative file as well.
RECOMMENDATION 3: SMPD must ensure that, pursuant to state law, complainants are advised of the outcome of any complaint investigation and a copy of the letter is included in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 4: When SMPD takes photographs related to injuries or other relevant aspects of the complaint investigation, it should retain such photographs in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Body-worn camera footage of officers that is relevant to the allegations should be included in the investigative file.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 8 Case Reviews and Recommendations
Case #1: Allegations of Excessive Force and Profanity During Traffic Stop
The complainant alleged that, during the traffic stop that had ultimately led to her arrest, the officer used profane language and assaulted her when he closed the driver’s door on her leg. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to excessive force by both the arresting officer and by jail personnel. She further alleged that she was wrongly denied her requests for medical attention or to make phone calls until after she had been fingerprinted and booked.
According to SMPD reports, the complainant was read the Department’s complaint policy and provided with a copy of the complaint process, but she was not formally interviewed about her complaint. SMPD reported that when an investigator attempted to interview her, she requested “immunity” from the incident and declined to cooperate further.
According to SMPD reports, the complainant was stopped as a result of a defective taillight. When the complainant was advised of the reason for the stop, she asked if she could see the tail-light and opened the car door. The body camera footage confirmed this discourse and the officer’s response to “stay in the fucking car,” followed by the slamming of the door. The complainant is heard to respond, “Why are you cursing me?” According to SMPD reports, the complainant argued with the officer about signing the citation that he intended to issue her and was advised that she would be arrested if she failed to sign. The complainant eventually signed the citation but then threw the pen she had used at the officer, striking him in the chest. As a result, the complainant was charged with assaulting a police officer and taken into custody. The case was presented to the City Attorney for filing consideration, but it was rejected.
The complainant further expressed unhappiness that her tongue stud piercing and her hair extensions were removed. It was explained to the complainant that jail policy required the removal of these accoutrements. SMPD records indicate that the complainant was eventually examined by jail medical staff, and she was cleared for booking. While these aspects of her treatment were problematic to her, they were consistent with reasonable Department protocol and thus did not constitute misconduct.
The officer admitted that his use of profanity was vulgar and contrary to policy, but that it was in reaction to a threatening situation when the complainant abruptly opened the car door during the stop. SMPD conducted a thoughtful analysis of the incident and determined that the involved officer was “short” with the complainant in a way that may have contributed to escalating the encounter. For example, when the complainant
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 9 continued to argue with the officer, the officer responded by indicating that he was going to give her another citation. It also found that the officer’s use of profanity violated SMPD policy; appropriate remedial action was undertaken. While the complainant’s reaction further escalated the situation that eventually led to her arrest, the Department appropriately concluded that the officer’s initial behavior was not in accord with its expectations.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The Investigation
The investigation was thorough and detailed. A particularly impressive feature of the investigation was that interviews were transcribed and included in the file.
However, while SMPD reports indicated that photographs had been taken of the complainant’s injuries, no photographs were included in the investigative file.4 Moreover, while the report indicated that the nurse at the jail examined the complainant for injuries, there were no jailer medical records.
5 . And while the investigation refers to
and relies on body-worn camera footage to make its determination, no body-worn camera footage was included in the file, which initially prevented us from corroborating what was reportedly depicted.6 Finally, state law requires that complainants be advised of the outcome of any internal investigation, but no closing letter to the complainant was located in the file.7
The report indicated that the involved officer was able to review body-worn camera video of the incident prior to being interviewed. Best practices warrant that subjects of internal investigations not be afforded the opportunity to review video prior to providing a statement so that the “pure” state of mind of the officer can be obtained. After an 4 We were advised that the photographs were not included in the file because they did not show any injuries. However, even evidence of “non-injuries” is relevant evidence and should be included in the investigative materials. Upon our request, the photographs were retrieved; they did not show any obvious injuries to the complainant.
5 In a recent discussion about this issue, SMPD raised privacy concerns of the complainant if the records were included in the internal investigative file. We appreciate those concerns, and encourage the Department to balance them appropriately with ensuring investigative thoroughness. We suggest a reference in the internal investigative file as to where the medical records have been lodged and that they have been reviewed as part of the investigation. 6 When we raised this issue with the Department, they were able to locate the relevant bodycamera footage, which we were then able to review. The footage is consistent with the investigative findings.
7 It is possible that the proper notification was sent but not included in the investigation file.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 10 initial statement is obtained, the officer should then be afforded the opportunity to review video footage to determine whether that review refreshed the recollection of the officer.
Finally, it took approximately 10 months to complete the investigation and review of this complaint. We recognize that some – but not all – of this delay is attributable to the challenges in gaining an interview with the complainant. Even so, SMPD could have completed the investigation in a more timely fashion. While state law allows for one year to complete the process, agencies should strive to complete investigations well before that statutory deadline. Barring exceptional circumstances, police agencies should strive to complete investigations between 60-180 days.
The Outcome
We concur with the outcome of the internal investigation that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the majority of the complainant’s allegations. We further agree with SMPD’s determination that the officer violated the Department’s profanity policy and the remedial discipline imposed.
RECOMMENDATION 6: When there is evidence of medical treatment by jail staff that is relevant to the allegations received, investigators should obtain and review such records and include them in the investigative file.
RECOMMENDATION 7: When officers are the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, they should be required to provide a pure interview statement prior to reviewing any body camera or other video footage, with a subsequent opportunity to review recordings and amend their responses as needed (and based on refreshed recollection).
Case # 2: Allegation of Missing Property
This case involved a claim filed by the complainant with the City that he had $1,000.00 in the sleeve of his MacBook carrier when he was arrested for domestic violence, and that the money was missing when he was given back his property. The City’s Risk Management group appropriately forwarded the claim to SMPD; to its credit, the Department then initiated an investigation into the allegation.
Once the investigation was initiated, the SMPD investigator attempted on three occasions to contact the complainant (who lived out of state) with no success. This hampered the investigation. However, a review of the arrest report and related materials noted that the MacBook sleeve in question was unattended and in a public space for several minutes after the complainant’s girlfriend threw it out the window.
Moreover, while the complainant spoke to officers after his arrest of having $100.00 in his personal possession (which was returned to him), he did not mention the larger amount of money that he later claimed was missing.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 11 The Investigation
This investigation took ten months to complete, and efforts were not made to contact the complainant until five months after the investigation was opened. Best investigative practices teach that a complainant should be contacted promptly when an investigative interview is needed to supplement a complaint. This not only assists with the effective framing of issues and compilation of best available evidence, but it also reinforces the notion that the Department is taking the matter seriously and prioritizing it appropriately.
Moreover, as we say repeatedly here, investigations should be completed well before the statutory due date for that and other reasons – including timely resolution for involved personnel and timely accountability and corrective action where warranted.
As with the previous case, there was no letter to the complainant in the investigative file informing him of the results of the investigation nor was there any documentation of the apparent rejection by the City of the claim.
SMPD’s Review
We concur with the determination that there was insufficient evidence to indicate any violations of policy by involved SMPD personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 8: SMPD should strive to contact the complainant of any investigation promptly – ideally within days of receiving the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION 9: SMPD should include any available documentation regarding resolution of a legal claim that resulted in the initiation of the complaint investigation.
Case # 3: Allegation of Excessive Force
The complainant in this matter alleged that he had been subjected to excessive force after he was evicted from a bar, claiming that he had unnecessarily been taken to the ground with his face pushed into concrete.
The investigation established the basic facts of the encounter in question. As a result of a dispute, the complainant had been ejected from the establishment. When police arrived the complainant was aggressively expressing unhappiness about the way he had been treated in the bar. SMPD officers instructed the complainant to sit down, but he declined to do so.
Because of his unruly behavior, a field training SMPD officer told her trainee to go hands on with the complainant, and the trainee first grabbed the complainant’s arms.
When the complainant continued to resist, the officers used a leg sweep to take the complainant to the ground. After he was handcuffed, the complainant was lifted back into a standing position. The complainant was released from the scene after representatives of the bar indicated that they had no interest in pursuing charges.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 12 During the investigation, the trainee admitted to using a leg sweep to take the complainant to the ground. The senior officer stated that she did not know the trainee had used a leg sweep until she reviewed the body-worn camera video after the fact.
The officer said she then asked the trainee why he did not tell her he had used a leg sweep, and he replied he did not know. The field training officer did not take additional action upon learning of this information. The sergeant who was on scene at the time of the incident also said that he was not aware that a leg sweep had been used and believed that the officer and subject had fallen to the ground.
Instead of preparing a formal report documenting the use of force, the force was documented on a field interview card. The sergeant said that it was his decision to document the force in that way.
Investigative Issues
As with other cases, there was no closing letter to the complainant nor any indication that a closing letter was prepared and sent.
Review Issues
We reviewed the reports and body worn camera footage of this incident and concur that there was insufficient evidence that the force used was contrary to SMPD’s use of force policy. However, there were significant issues that were not considered relating to the reporting and documentation of force.
SMPD policy requires officers who use force to report that force to a supervisor and to document that force in a formal report.
300.14.1 NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISORS
Notification to a sworn supervisor shall be made as soon as practicable following the application of force in any of the following circumstances:
[…]
(j) An individual was struck, kicked, and/or otherwise forcibly taken to the ground. 300.14 REPORTING THE USE OF FORCE
Any use of force by a member of the Department shall be documented by the involved member promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate incident/crime report or supplemental incident/crime report before the member completes their shift.
The first issue here is that the trainee had not properly reported the extent of his force (specifically the leg sweep) at the time of the incident, either to his training officer or the sergeant who was on scene. Because of the failure of the trainee to immediately report the use of force to either the training officer or the on-scene sergeant and the way in which the sergeant allowed the force to be informally documented, the use of force
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 13 mechanisms were not effectively activated. This would normally have included an interview of the subject and other investigative steps by the supervisor, as well as certain standardized review protocols as to compliance with force policy.
When that information did subsequently emerge, the field training officer took no action to ensure that the use of force was fully reported and reviewed; instead, she simply inquired of the trainee about his lack of full, accurate acknowledgment at the scene. The field identification card that was originally – and questionably – used as documentation by the sergeant was clearly inadequate to the more significant level of force that had actually occurred, but it was not supplemented. In short, potential violations of the Department’s reporting and documentation policies seem to have occurred, but were not considered and assessed as part of the complaint investigation.
In the executive level review of the complaint investigation, the reviewer failed to identify these deficiencies in force reporting, documentation and on-scene review. Moreover, in discussing the reasons for the force, the reviewer spoke of the “furtive” movements of the complainant in explaining the officer's actions. This sort of vague, catch-all language has become disfavored in current policing, as a greater burden has shifted to law enforcement to explain with precision why physical force was needed. Progressive agencies teach their members that general words such as “furtive” do not provide the level of detail necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of any subsequent actions by officers. Rather, the force analysis should discuss with precision what the individual was observed as doing or saying that became the basis for any subsequent application of force.
RECOMMENDATION 10: In reviewing complaints relating to inappropriate use of force allegations, the internal investigation should expand to include and address potential issues that may emerge in the adequacy of reporting, documentation, and supervisory review.
RECOMMENDATION 11: SMPD should advise its supervisory team that when reviewing or analyzing force reports, it should avoid terms like “furtive movements” and describe with detail what the subject did or said as a basis for any use of force application.
Case # 4: Allegation of Poor Tactics and Excessive Force Officers saw a residential burglary suspect on a bicycle and attempted to stop him; instead, he fled. This prompted an additional response by another set of officers, who soon encountered a different person on a bicycle and confronted him under the mistaken impression that he was their target. The man was uncooperative and eventually taken to the ground in the process of handcuffing him. The initial officers arrived at the location and cleared up the misunderstanding; however, the man was still
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 14 (understandably) upset and claimed that some pre-existing injuries had been exacerbated during the struggle.8
The administrative interview with the complainant was detailed and included affording him the chance to review available BWC recordings. That opportunity prompted him to acknowledge that some of his specific allegations (including the claim that a “chokehold” had been used against him) were not supported by the evidence. He remained adamant, however, that one of the four involved officers had been particularly excessive and inappropriate. This officer had also failed to engage his body-worn camera – an issue that was not pursued in the investigation, but which very much made a negative impression on the complainant. The complainant also questioned the reasonableness of the mistake by which officers had wrongly confused him for the suspect they sought.
The allegations of misconduct were ultimately unfounded. A detailed “Letter of Transmittal” included a lengthy analysis that delved into the entirety of the incident. (The force had been evaluated separately as part of other SMPD internal review protocols; however, no materials relating to findings were included in the file). The mistaken identity was recognized as unfortunate but not ultimately blameworthy to the extent it constituted a policy violation. The lieutenant’s case analysis also pointed out that the officer who had had the most direct contact with the complainant had come on to the scene in way that compressed the timeline and left little room for de-escalation.
Appropriate counseling was recommended.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
There were strengths to the investigation, including the aforementioned thorough and balanced interview with the complainant. The case also included interview statements from civilian witnesses to the encounter – one of whom acknowledged the complainant’s vocal anger but still had the impression that the officers were too quick to engage physically. The interviews were transcribed, and the case file itself was wellorganized – for the most part. Importantly, it was missing the BWC evidence from one of the involved officers that was supposedly a significant basis for the decision that no policy violations had occurred. The file also did not include a copy of the notification letter that should have been sent to the complainant pursuant to state law.
As for concerns, we noted that this case was consistent with the pattern of a protracted timeline: the final signoff at the executive level occurred within days of the end of the one-year limitations period for any potential imposition of discipline by a California police agency. We were also curious about the lack of any formal intervention with regard to 8 He had been afforded medical care at the scene but not transported to the hospital.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 15 the primary officer’s failure to engage his BWC – a deficiency that was certainly noted by, and understandably bothersome to, the complainant himself.9 Perhaps more significantly, the review and decision-making process (as opposed to the investigation itself) seemed to underplay aspects of the complaint that appeared to have some legitimacy. The complainant questioned how well he “fit the description” of the suspect whom the officers were seeking, and he seemingly had a fair point. Apart from the fact that both men were on bicycles, wore an article of clothing that was the same color (though it was a hat on one and a shirt on the other), and were persons of color (one Black, and one Hispanic), the resemblance was limited. The complainant’s chafing at the supposed justification was accordingly understandable in our view. Even assuming the sincerity of the officers’ confusion and acknowledging the dynamic nature of the encounter, the issue is sensitive enough to have warranted further attention.
Ideally, the complaint process ensures not only appropriate accountability, but also a deeper reckoning with performance or training issues that could lead to improvement for involved personnel and the agency as a whole. The “mistaken identity” problem that leads to the detention of innocent Black people is a notorious source of distrust and resentment. The anger and physical resistance that complicated this specific incident should not completely overshadow the underlying mistake by the officers that started things. While the lieutenant’s analysis made a useful gesture in the direction of improving use of time and distance prior to physical engagement, our sense is that a further exploration would have been beneficial.
Case # 5: Allegation of Parking Officer Rudeness
A woman initiated this complaint against a parking officer after what she alleged was a negative encounter. She said she was with a small group of family and friends in a metered parking area when they were approached and scolded by an SMPD parking officer. He apparently seemed to think someone in the group was adding money to expired meters to thwart his ability to ticket cars, and made a sarcastic remark about the person apparently wanting to work for the Department. The woman found it extremely off-putting and an “abuse of authority” – not least because she asserted that this was not what they were doing in the first place.
The allegation was ultimately “not sustained” in the aftermath of the investigation. The officer claimed not to have a specific recollection of the incident. He also claimed that, even if he had suspected people of the conduct at issue, his practice is to provide education (as opposed to chastising). Although the officer was equipped with a bodyworn camera, he did not record the encounter. This was within his discretion at the time that the incident occurred (the policy has since been made more definitive). 9 This is a different problem than the aforementioned non-inclusion in the file of another officer’s recording that was apparently created and relied upon.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 16 Given the differing versions of the encounter, and the lack of definitive proof that improper conduct had occurred to the level of a policy violation, the Department determined that a “not sustained” finding was the appropriate choice.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The investigation file was well-organized and thorough, though it did not include a copy of the notification letter. This case also showed examples of resourcefulness and due diligence on the part of the investigator, including interviews with other parties who had been with the complainant at the time of the encounter. (Their stories essentially matched hers in terms of the key components). The complainant chose the parking officer from a “six-pack” identification package, and records of his activity established that he had been on-duty and in the area at the time alleged.
Still, although his denial was more theoretical than adamant (since he said he didn’t remember the incident but doubted that he would have treated people like that), the Department decided that the requisite preponderance of the evidence against him had not been established. This, in our view, was at least arguable. It also illustrated the value of relatively prompt interviews (so as to lessen the likelihood that an “I don’t recall” response will credibly occur)10 and the value of body-worn camera recordings (which would be expected per policy to exist in a similar scenario today).
We do have the sense that the Department took the investigation seriously. And it strikes us as an example of a scenario in which the process presumably sent a message that influenced behavior as much or more as the minor discipline that a sustained violation would have warranted.
Case # 6: Failure To Take a Report
The complainant in this case alleged that he had been a victim of a battery while exercising outside, and was frustrated by what he perceived to be the inadequacy of the initial SMPD response. Two officers did respond to the location, but eventually declined to file a report after locating the suspect, finding him to be somewhat incoherent, and lacking a definitive sense that a crime had occurred.
The complainant contacted SMPD again the next day, upset that no action had been taken. Meanwhile, the suspect had been arrested for a separate burglary allegation; he was ultimately cited for the previous day’s encounter as well. The complainant thought that the initial responding officers had underperformed in not taking appropriate enforcement action at the time of the incident.
The investigation established that one of the officers had in fact fallen short of expectations in terms of the diligence of his investigative efforts and documentation.
The other, meanwhile, was relatively new to the job, had deferred to the more 10 This case was not finalized for some ten months after the complaint was lodged, another extended timeline for a relatively straightforward matter.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 17 experienced officer who took charge of the call, and had done due diligence before being released from the scene by his colleague. Accordingly, he was exonerated of any culpability.
As for the first officer, he was forthright in acknowledging shortcomings in his performance and accepted responsibility. (It should also be noted that there were significant mitigating circumstances, including some ambiguity in the complainant’s original information to officers.)
While the Department determined that the senior officer’s performance had constituted a violation of policy, it was ultimately not able to administer formal discipline. This is because the case was not finalized until after the end of the one-year limitations period.
The problem partly stemmed from the two-week gap between the man’s initial complaint and his more thorough, formal interview with an investigator; the latter date was incorrectly relied upon. Accordingly, the Department characterized the ultimate finding as “miscellaneous.” It was precluded from disciplining the officer, but the record of the case nonetheless was included in his personnel file for future reference.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
This investigation file had many of the strengths of others we looked at, in terms of the organized file, thorough interviews, and meticulous efforts to reconstruct events. The notification letter to the complainant was also included here. Clearly, though these attributes were overshadowed by the failure to process the completed investigation in time to impose an appropriate disciplinary consequence. The actual discipline here would likely have been at a minor level -- perhaps only a written reprimand and at most a one-day suspension. The issue is therefore less about the officer’s avoiding a severe outcome than about the ineffectiveness of the process itself.
Establishing a correct limitations date is as fundamental as any element of a functioning discipline process. But the fact that the error in calculation was relevant at all is itself an indication that the Department was extending the process to a detrimental extent.
Case # 7: Allegation of Intentional Provocation of Third Parties and Other Misconduct
The complainant in this case was the newly divorced wife of a Santa Monica officer.
She contacted the Department to express concern about an incident that had occurred approximately 12 years earlier, when she and the officer were still married. She described being at a Christmas party attended by several SMPD officers and family members, at which a disturbing video had been shown.
The on-duty video was taken by an officer who was not her then-husband, but it did involve him and other members of the “Special Policing District” unit that was assigned
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 18 to the beach in Santa Monica. Per the complainant’s version of events, the video showed a clash between two apparently homeless individuals – a male and female.
The complainant alleged that the officers had in fact goaded the two into conflict in order to film the result for their entertainment.
The investigation was largely able to reconstruct events in spite of the passage of time.
There were records of what was apparently the incident in question – a call for service that had involved a dispute between a male and female on the beach who knew each other. Per the recollection of the involved officers (most of whom were still with the agency and were interviewed as part of the investigation), the woman had defecated on the man while he was sleeping in the sand in retaliation for his owing her money. The officers recalled finding the man to be somewhat confused and non-desirous of officer involvement. They remembered assisting him in cleaning up and then clearing the call.
The officers also acknowledged the accuracy of some elements of the complainant’s story. This included the existence of the video, which one of the officers had created with a personal recorder that he sometimes brought on patrol under his own initiative. (The video itself was apparently no longer available.) It also included the fact of that year’s holiday party, and the showing of the video as part of the evening’s events. They denied, however, that the video depicted them engaging at all inappropriately with the two principals whose conflict had generated their response to the scene. Instead, their collective memory was that video had been shared because the situation itself was humorously bizarre – and not because they had played a role in instigating anything.
Though the propriety of the video’s being taken in the first place, and then being shown in a non-work context, remained open questions (to say nothing of the potential legitimacy of the complainant’s allegations as to what it actually portrayed) the investigation eventually became truncated by a procedural matter. This was the realization that a sergeant had been in attendance at the party.
This individual, now retired, was interviewed for the case. He verified that he had seen the video and was aware of its contents. This meant that, as a technical matter, the statute of limitations for imposing discipline could be said to have begun no later than the date of the party. From that starting point, the end of the one-year limitations period had also long since passed. Accordingly, SMPD decided to reach no conclusions as to the evidence with regard to any of the potential allegations.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
The Department’s “rescinding” of the case left several loose ends. In fairness to SMPD, it should be noted that some of these were unavoidable. For example, though the sergeant’s failure to take action with regard to the video was still potentially actionable (since others in a position to initiate an investigation were not aware), he had retired.
Moreover, the extreme passage of time and the tension between the complainant and her former spouse made it difficult to establish which version of the underlying call for service was the more accurate.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 19 At the same time, the allegations – and the undisputed behavior that was related to them – were attention-getting in a way that merited the Department’s follow-up. Even if there was not a basis for formal disciplinary action, the administration could and should have clarified with those involved parties that the conduct at issue reflected poorly on the agency. Additionally, the complainant raised other concerns about more recent offduty conduct involving her former husband. These were peripheral to her original complaint. To the investigator’s credit, he solicited information and sought assurance that she was getting any assistance that she needed in handling ongoing interactions.
However, as with the main complaint, the file gave no indication of achieving resolution or intervention as to these matters.
The distinctive circumstances of this case certainly posed challenges to the Department with regard to fair or meaningful investigation and/or remediation. That said, there appeared to be enough actionable information for some due diligence and a constructive response to have occurred. We hope but have no evidence that SMPD took advantage of this opportunity. More broadly, we encourage the Department to look at the complaint process as an opportunity for improvement at the individual officer or agency-wide levels, with potential that extends beyond the kind of formal accountability measures that were precluded for this complaint. We also recommend that SMPD add to the relevant case file documentation of any actions taken in response to complaintgenerated issues.
RECOMMENDATION 12: SMPD should work to ensure that it maximizes the potential benefits of rigorous complaint review by addressing identified issues through counseling, training, or other relevant non-disciplinary measures, even when formal accountability is not appropriate or possible.
RECOMMENDATION 13: SMPD should be pro-active in responding to peripheral concerns that emerge in the context of a complaint investigation, and should document any resulting interventions as part of the case file.
Case # 18: Allegations of Excessive Force and Unjustified Arrest A man was arrested after allegedly attempting to shoplift goods and then getting into an altercation with the employee of the sunglasses store where the alleged theft had occurred. The employee said that the man punched him in the face as he tried to block him from leaving so he could summon police. The man ultimately became the complainant when he was encountered by multiple SMPD officers a short time later in response to the call for service. He claimed that the arrest had been unjustified, and that the officers had used excessive force in the process of taking him into custody.
Certain facts were not in dispute. The man was indeed arrested on the day in question, and three officers had engaged with him physically in an effort to place him in handcuffs. The first two officers on scene were struggling when the third officer arrived
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 20 with his K-9 partner – which he quickly deployed in an effort to assist his colleagues.
The dog bit the man in the calf, which was a precursor to the end of the struggle and the successful handcuffing. The bite required several staples to close.
As to whether the officers had been justified in detaining him, he did meet the description of the suspect in the shoplifting/assault case and was proximate to the store when officers first engaged with him.11 Moreover, the officers were consistent in their reports that the man was confrontational and resistant from the outset, and asserted that their struggle to get the man into handcuffs was a function of his refusal to submit.
These assertions were reportedly corroborated by body-worn camera evidence, but there were limitations to this. One of the three involved officers did not turn on his camera. The K-9 officer did, but arrived late to the scene and inadvertently ended up facing in a direction that did not capture significant aspects of the bite. (Nor did his recording establish any of the actions by the complainant that prompted the officers’ initial physical response. It did, however, show the extent of the original two officers’ difficulty in controlling the man.) The third officer reportedly did activate his camera appropriately and to useful effect.
The deployment of the dog to assist in taking the man into custody was perhaps the most significant aspect of the force analysis, insofar as two officers were already “hands-on” with the subject and the resultant bite was responsible for his most significant injury. However, the memo that summarized the case and exonerated all three officers noted that the circumstances did fall within the permissible parameters for “apprehension” under the operative K-9 policy.
OIR Group Review and Analysis
This investigation matched several of the strengths we saw in other cases, including a well-organized file and a resourcefulness in gathering evidence to assess the particular claims. While this did not feature the comprehensive interview with the complainant that we noted in other examples, this was apparently the function of a lack of response by the complainant subsequent to his initial outreach to the Department. the available evidence seemed to refute the complainant’s assertions about his actions prior to being contacted by police, and he in fact showed assaultive behavior just prior to their arrival that is consistent with their assertions about his resistance. SMPD also disagreed with his complaint about the “excessive” nature of the force; this too, seems to have been supported by available evidence.
Our ability to corroborate was limited by technical difficulties with regard to one of the videos. Beyond that, though, this proved to be another case in which the potential “pool” of video evidence was reduced by one of the involved officer’s failure to activate his 11 The reporting party was brought to the site of the arrest and made a positive identification of the complainant.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) 21 camera in this first place. SMPD does not appear to have addressed this issue within the investigation. While these events transpired more than three years ago, and while we hope evolutions in policy and Department expectations have increased both compliance and accountability, we accordingly reiterate our encouragement that SMPD focus on this issue. In particular, we recommend the Department address such lapses formally in the context of complaint cases, even if the issue is not a part of the complainant’s original concerns.
While no discipline attached in this case (thereby lessening the impact of any failure to meet the one-year deadline), we noted that the final “sign-off” for the investigation appears to have been some thirteen months after the incident. This is consistent with the timeliness concerns that we have cited above, and which we encourage SMPD to address.
Conclusion
The proper investigation of public complaints is a hallmark of police agency effectiveness. Ideally, these investigations ensure that officers are accountable for their misconduct, that community members are confident about law enforcement legitimacy, and that the feedback from specific incidents leads to relevant interventions for improvement of future performance.
As explained above, our review of the most recent completed SMPD investigations showed them to be fundamentally sound in ways that correspond to achievement of those positive results. At the same time, we noted recurrent – and readily fixable – issues that merit the Department’s attention; we hope our recommendations will provide useful ideas for strengthening its approach in this important area of operations.
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment B: Santa Monica Complaint Review Final 10 7 22 (5364 : PSROC Reports) Santa Monica Police Department
Office of Inspector General
INTERIM REPORT ON THE STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF OIR GROUP MAY
31, 2020 AFTER-ACTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
September 2022
Michael Gennaco
Steve Connolly
Julie Ruhlin
Teresa Magula
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports)
323-821-0586
7142 Trask Avenue | Playa del Rey, CA
90293
OIRGroup.com
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) Introduction
On May 11, 2021, OIR Group presented an independent After-Action report on the events of May 31, 2020, to the Santa Monica City Council. This report included 44 recommendations to improve the City and Santa Monica Police Department’s response to future incidents and increase transparency and accountability.
In response, the Council directed the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) to report on the status of acceptance and implementation of these recommendations. The Department provided its first response to Council on July 29, 2021, in an “Information Item” that outlined the Department’s response to and plans to implement each of the 44 recommendations. In short, the Department reported that it had accepted all of OIR Group’s recommendations and expressed its commitment to rebuilding trust with the community by implementing them.
The Department also experienced changes in leadership with the appointment of a new Chief of Police in October of 2021.
And, in the interim, the City established two new mechanisms for oversight of SMPD:
• The Public Safety Reform and Oversight Committee (PSROC) is a committee of 11 community members, appointed by the City Council to evaluate and make recommendations regarding public safety reform and promote interaction, collaboration, and trust between the community and SMPD. • The Inspector General supports PSROC by reviewing, analyzing, and reporting on policies and practices of SMPD. The City retained OIR Group as its Inspector General.
The PSROC requested OIR Group to report on the Department’s progress of the 44 recommendations. We are pleased to report that the Department has completed 29 recommendations and is making progress toward implementation of the remaining 15.
This interim report will discuss the recommendations and outline the Department’s progress to date.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 2 | P a g e
Recommendation Overview
OIR Group’s 44 recommendations covered various topics, including:
• Department leadership considerations
• Policy changes or updates
• Necessary training
• Technology updates
• Review and accountability mechanisms
• Community engagement
Of these, some were immediately actionable by Department personnel, such as adding new language to its crowd dispersal order, while others required longer-term considerations or actions by the Department, such as development and delivery of training. Still others required collaboration and feedback from external parties, such as other City agencies like Public Works or the City Attorney, or from the community at large.
Audit Findings
As noted above, the Department committed to implementation of all 44 recommendations. While the Department self-reported significant progress in its initial report to Council, our charge was to validate that progress through the review of related materials that supported completion of each item.
To that end, we met with various “subject matter experts” from the Department who provided extensive information for our review. After reviewing this evidence, our review found that:
• 29 of the recommendations have been completed by the Department • 15 of the recommendations are in progress
The audited recommendations are listed below by category. OIR Group’s specific findings regarding each recommendation follow the summary table.
Planning and Intelligence Recommendations
Several of the recommendations were related to intelligence, planning, and communication lapses identified in the OIR Group report. To address many of these recommendations, the Department created a formal “Planning and Intelligence Cadre” within the Professional Services Division in October of 2020. The Cadre is considered
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 3 | P a g e
as collateral duty1for 15 members, who schedule shifts to constantly monitor intelligence sources, such as social media, and create Incident Command plans for planned events.2 These recommendations and their status are summarized in the table below.
1 “Collateral duty” means an assignment that personnel take on or are assigned in addition to their regular duties. Because SMPD is a smaller agency, many officers take on one or more collateral duties. This is commendable but can also lead to burn-out as officers take on multiple roles and responsibilities. And we advise that the Department carefully consider assignments to roles that might conflict; for example, a member of the Planning and Intelligence Cadre is also a highly-trained member of SWAT. When he is assigned to Intelligence during an event, he does not respond to the field with his team.
2 The Department plans to reduce the size of this Cadre and place it under the direction of new command staff. The Department contends that a smaller size will allow for closer collaboration, better communication, and more specific responsibilities among Cadre members.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 4 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation Policy or Evidence Status
2 The Chief of Police should make clear
to the Department and City leadership
when they will be out of town and
clearly designate an Acting Chief in her
or his absence.
204.5 - Electronic
Mail
701 - Personal
Communication
Devices Completed
3 SMPD should develop written protocols
to ensure that an operations plan is
developed in advance of all potential
crowd control situations, establishing
expectations for the depth and inclusion
as well as a chain of command
approval mechanism.
433.5 - Planned
Event Preparation
Ops Plans are
prepared routinely
now; length and
detail are
determined by the
nature of the event Completed
4 SMPD should develop written protocols
to ensure timely and thoughtful
designation of an incident commander
for special operations.
433.5.2 -
Operational Plans.
IC designation is
part of new plans.
Rank depends on
nature of event,
scope, etc. Completed
5 SMPD should ensure that critical
personnel, including those tasked with
intelligence gathering and other crucial
functions, remain in the City prior to a
major incident and are not sent out as
part of a mutual aid response or
otherwise assigned supplementary
duties.
Intelligence Cadre
schedule in place to
show who is
responsible at each
time of day. That
person does not
report out to field
even if part of their
regular duties. Completed
6 SMPD should establish a dedicated
listserv with “read receipt” functionality
for command to receive intelligence
briefings in a formal and timely manner
and confirm receipt of such information.
Reviewed and
discussed. Completed
26 SMPD should consider who from
command-level staff will take on the
role of Overall Field Incident Command
if the Civil Unrest Annex is activated
and train this/these personnel on the
requirements and expectations of the
plan.
Reviewed ICS
plans; overview from
Intelligence/Planning
Cadre Completed
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 5 | P a g e
27 City leadership, in collaboration with
Public Works, should consider
determining guidelines for use of
barriers in advance of civil unrest, both
protective fencing on public and private
property and for traffic control, that are
practicable and effective.
Reviewed plans
from Public Works Completed
28 City leadership, in collaboration with
Public Works, should consider
establishing guidelines for use of heavy
equipment to support defensive
enforcement action.
Reviewed plans
from Public Works Completed
29 SMPD leadership should work with
Area A partners to develop solutions to
address the bureaucratic challenges
exposed on May 31 and ensure an
equitable distribution of National Guard
assets in future situations involving civil
unrest.
Reviewed currently
used ICS and Ops
Plans showing
advanced calls to
Area A partners. Completed
30 SMPD should reach out to other law
enforcement agencies who confronted
violence and looting in the summer of
2020 and review after action reports
from other jurisdictions to identify best
practices that could be imported to
Santa Monica in responses to future
protest activity.
Reviewed and
discussed. Completed
33 The City and SMPD should continue to
evaluate and refine the ways it
communicates with the Santa Monica
community following any significant
event involving a police response,
guided by principles of transparency,
accuracy and objectivity.
Crisis
Communication
Plan;
Community
Conversation;
Coffee with a Cop
series In Progress
Recommendation 2 deals with communication for intelligence and planning. It requires that the Chief designate and communicate, via email, an Acting Chief. The Department provided an example of an email whereby such a designation was made. SMPD now has the appropriate policy and procedures in place. We consider this recommendation to be completed.3
As detailed in the table above, the majority of these Planning and Intelligence recommendations relate to essential aspects of incident planning and command. The 3 Of course, as with any changed protocol or policy, continued adherence to those written expectations rest with SMPD.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 6 | P a g e
Department provided us with exemplar Operational Plans created and used for various recent events. These included plans for spontaneous events, such as the possibility of unrest after the Derek Chauvin verdict in April of 2021, and plans for pre-planned events, such as an anti-vaccination rally. The Department also provided a plan for a day when multiple events were scheduled to show how resources were assigned to different locations in the City (namely, a pro-Ukraine rally and a Human Rights rally in February of 2022). Finally, the Department provided a plan based on intelligence gathered by the Cadre from social media (posts related to possible looting in the City).
We found these plans, and related written policies, to be responsive to the recommendations as follow:
Recommendation 3 recommends written protocols to ensure that operations plans are developed. These protocols are now explicitly listed in the Department Policy 433.5, “Planned Event Preparation.” The Department reported and the sample plans exemplified that Operations Plans are now prepared routinely. These plans range in length and detail from formal FEMA Incident Command Structure (ICS) plans, which are extremely detailed and include external agencies, to “Event Action Plans” (EAPs) that cover SMPD-specific deployment, such as identification of an incident commander, a briefing, the mission/objectives, communication, location of Command Post, necessary equipment, and assigned personnel. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 4 recommends written protocols to ensure designation of an incident commander. These protocols are now explicitly listed in Department Policy 433.5.2, “Operational Plans.” Here, the designation of “Incident Commander” is explicitly required. The Department shared that the rank of the assigned Incident Commander will vary depending on the nature and scope of event. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 5 recommends that individuals tasked with intelligence gathering remain in the City. The Department shared their current Intelligence Cadre scheduling matrix, which assigns members to the Intelligence function on a rotating basis. The assigned personnel, regardless of his/her regular duties, does not report to the field.
Anecdotally, a sergeant from the Cadre who also serves on the SWAT team shared a recent time when he was assigned to the Intelligence Cadre at a time when the SWAT team was called out; he did not deploy with his team but remained in the Intelligence function. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 6 asked the Department to consider “read receipts” for all intelligence briefings. The Department reported that they did implement this functionality for several months. However, it created two challenges: first, a large
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 7 | P a g e
volume of “read receipt” emails were generated, clogging the inboxes of those who sent them; second, the relative importance of the intelligence briefing was diminished over time. The Department advised that as a result of these difficulties, it currently limits the “read receipt” functionality for intelligence briefings of high importance. OIR Group will continue to monitor this recommendation and how/when intelligence briefings are rated as “high importance.” We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 26 recommended that SMPD consider who would be assigned to Overall Field Command if the City’s Civil Unrest Annex is activated. The Department provided sample plans showing that specific command level staff were assigned to the Incident Commander role in advance, and that a back-up “on-call” commander was also defined if the Civil Unrest Annex were to be implemented. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 27 was one of two recommendations (along with Recommendation 28, below) that directed to City leadership to address some of the Department’s challenges in collaborating with Public Works; Recommendation 27 specifically requested that the City, in collaboration with the Department, determine guidelines for use of barriers in advance of civil unrest, both protective fencing on public and private property and for traffic control, that are practicable and effective. Public Works reported that, for every City-wide event, the “Unified Command” (Office of Emergency Management, Public Works, Fire, and Police) collaborates to prepare an Event Action Plan in which each department details their responsibilities. We reviewed these documents outlining assignments of personnel and resources in advance of possible unrest associated with the trial of Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis and saw evidence of the type of planning and advance coordination needed to mitigate the type of harms experienced on May 31st. In the plans for these incidents, Public Works committed to providing K-rails for barricading, boarding up facilities, performing traffic control, and cleaning up after the events. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 28 specifically recommended that the City, in collaboration with the Department, should consider establishing guidelines for use of heavy equipment to support defensive enforcement action. Here again we reviewed the Event Action Plans for four events. Public Works committed to providing fleet disposal vehicles (that may be used for barricading) and emergency activation vehicles from Public Works that may be used for barricading as a last resort. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Further, the Department’s response to Recommendations 27 and 28 acknowledged the need for greater collaboration to obtain resources and access to Public Works
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 8 | P a g e
equipment for use in incidents of civil unrest. This was evidenced in the collaborative nature of the Event Action Plans reviewed.
Recommendation 29 recommended that leadership work with Area A partners to develop solutions to any bureaucratic challenges related to equitable resource deployment. The Department reported that these meetings have occurred, with more planned for the future. We reviewed the newest Area A Mutual Aid agreement and found it to be sufficient. The Department also showed currently used ICS and smallerscale Ops Plans where Area A partners had been called in advance of operations so that mutual aid was “at the ready” in case of need. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 30 recommended that the Department reach out to other law enforcement agencies to review After-Action Reports. The Department reported that it collected and reviewed the After-Action Reports from the New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago Police Departments and the Portland Police Bureau. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 33 recommended that the Department work with the City to continue to evaluate and refine communication. The Department reported that this recommendation is in progress. While they have established a Crisis Communication Plan and re-engaged with community through sessions such as “Coffee with a Cop,” the Department acknowledged that there is more to do with regard to transparency. In an effort to increase transparency, the Department reported that it is actively seeking to make more information available to the public on their Department website. Like other agencies, SMPD would like to post real-time dashboards with data on calls for service, uses of force, complaints, OIR reports, and other categories of interest. We highly support this effort as it directly ties to Recommendation 33 and the increased need for transparency. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Training Recommendations
The training recommendations varied from Department-wide to command-level, and SMPD has responded by providing training to personnel, both that which is required by Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) and developed in-house to respond to specific needs. These recommendations and their status are summarized in the table below.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 9 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
13 SMPD should conduct regular and
ongoing training on use of impact
munitions in crowd situations so that all
officers trained in the use of these
munitions are advised of how to most
effectively deploy them and have a clear
understanding of Departmental
expectations.
Training
documents &
Attendance log Completed
16 Training for supervisors on unlawful
assembly should emphasize the need to
follow Department policy and reach out to
event organizers or participants with the
goal of gaining voluntary dispersal prior to
issuing formal dispersal orders.
Training
documents &
Attendance log Completed
19 SMPD should continue to impress upon its
supervisors the need to follow all dispersal
order protocols before any introduction of
less lethal munitions.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
21 SMPD should continue to provide
command level staff with updated training
on the ICS so that command staff is
knowledgeable about its use and benefits.
Training
documents Completed
22 SMPD should ensure that all command
staff personnel are well versed in
contemporary crowd control responses,
particularly in the First Amendment
context.
Training
documents, list
of organizations Completed
23 SMPD should continue to regularly train all
officers in Mobile Field Force tactics, to
include the newest techniques with live,
hand-on scenario training and new laws
related to First Amendment Assemblies
and civil unrest.
"SMPD Training
Announcement,"
SMPD April
2021 Training
Curriculum In Progress
24 SMPD should consider additional
Department-wide trainings on topics such
as use of de-escalation techniques and
other tactics to reduce tension in civil
unrest or other similar scenarios.
Training
documents &
Attendance log In Progress
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 10 | P a g e
25 City leadership (specifically, the Office of
Emergency Management) should hold a
City-wide training event with all relevant
City agencies to review the Civil Unrest
Annex so that all agencies are aware of
their role and expectations during times of
spontaneous civil unrest. In Progress
36 SMPD should complete the two
Department-wide training items identified
in the Internal Review Board memo related
to uses of force on May 31: (1) review of
body-worn camera policy and (2) review of
the Department use of force reporting
policy.
"Training
Bulletin: Body
Worn Cameras"
425, Portable
Audio/Video
Recorders Completed
37 SMPD should develop and deliver ongoing Department-wide training related to documenting and reporting use of force in
civil unrest situations or other large-scale
incidents, and incorporate body-worn
camera procedures and use of force
reporting into all department tactical
training.
Scribe position
assigned and
tested In Progress
38 SMPD should remind all officers – in daily
briefings, a Department-wide training or a
Training Bulletin, and specifically in
briefings prior to any protest activity – of
the requirement to activate their bodyworn camera generally per policy and during crowd control incidents in specific.
"Training
Bulletin: Body
Worn Camera" Completed
42 SMPD should review its systems for
supporting officer wellness, including the
availability of counselors and other
professionals, and should consider ways
to encourage officers to take advantage of
those programs who may be struggling
with the trauma of the events of May 31
and other events of the past year.
Wellness
presentation Completed
Recommendation 13 recommends regular and ongoing training on the use of impact munitions in crowd situations. The Department responded by recruiting and training a new Mobile Field Force “cadre,” to join and supplement its Use of Force Cadre. These Cadres serve two functions.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 11 | P a g e
• Deployment. These specialized units deploy to incidents and calls for service where their specific skill-sets are needed (for example, members of the Use of Force Cadre are trained and certified in use of certain less lethal munitions). • Train-the-trainer. Members regularly attend specialized instructor-level training sessions offered nationwide, such as the “Less Lethal and Chemical Agents” training from the National Tactical Officers Association (September 8, 2020) and a “Lessons Learned” presentation from a nationwide expert about the 2020 civil unrest (Winter 2021). Once certified as trainers, the officers train the Department personnel in-house.
Using the “train-the-trainer” model, Department then delivers training to personnel at all levels related to use of less-lethal impact munitions in its on-going Advanced Officer Training detailed below (see Recommendations 23). We received and reviewed anticipated and current course outlines for these topics and found them to be aligned with current best-practices related to these topics. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
We did identify one area of possible concern in a 2011 training outline from the National Tactical Officers Association, which discussed firing “skip rounds” into the crowd, noting that it is “difficult to control skip shots.” When asked, the SMPD Training Division responded that the Winter 2021 training did not advise use of any skip rounds. Further, SMPD Training Division reported that SMPD does not have any less-lethal munitions that are intended for use as “skip rounds” – commonly called “wood batons” or “foam” -- in their current less-lethal inventory nor do they train officers to skip fire any type of munition off of the ground.
Recommendation 16 recommended that the Department train supervisors in the need for reach out to event organizers or participants in advance of dispersal orders. First, we saw this requirement in the “Crowd Management and Intervention Control Strategies” matrix, a training document related to Policy 433, “First Amendment Assemblies,” that lists the different actions to be taken, step by step, when managing a crowd event. (e.g., “use organizers and monitors to gain voluntary compliance” is one step in the matrix). We also saw this in practice: several of the example Operation Plans listed above (see Planning and Intelligence) had contact information for organizers and/or a designated “Liaison Officer” and Public Information Officer role. The Department also covered the topic in MFF training and in the Advanced Officer Training detailed later (see Recommendation 23, below). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 19 recommended that the Department continue to train supervisors on the need to follow all dispersal order protocols prior to deployment of less lethal munitions. In addition to including this language explicitly in Policy 433, “First
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 12 | P a g e
Amendment Assemblies,” the Department also covered the topic in MFF training and in the Advanced Officer Training detailed later (see Recommendation 23, below). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 21 recommended that the Department continue to provide command level staff with updated training on the ICS so that command staff is knowledgeable about its use and benefits. The Department reported that it directed all command level personnel, sergeants and above, to attend Incident Command training sessions offered in the Los Angeles area and taught by FEMA and the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments. It also recommended that command staff become members in national organizations; the Department reported that command staff are members of organizations such as the California Police Officers’ Association (CPOA), the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA). We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 22 recommended that the Department ensure that all command staff personnel are well versed in contemporary crowd control responses, particularly in the First Amendment context. Here again, the Department reported that all command staff attend the Incident Command training sessions regularly, where contemporary crowd management responses are trained and discussed. Membership in national organizations (see Recommendation 21, above) and participation in their respective conferences will further their training. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 23 was the most directly relevant to the May 31st unrest and recommended delivery of Department-wide Mobile Field Force (MFF) training. This training was delivered in-person June of 2020 and April of 2021 to 126 officers. 4 We
reviewed the training deck and found the materials to be a refresher on basic MFF definitions, crowd management concepts, and formations. These are consistent with modern-day best-practices but are very basic, and further training is scheduled to expand on the concepts.
The Department has also committed to providing on-going Mobile Field Force training to all personnel during its regular, two-year “Advanced Officer Training” cycle beginning in 2023. This commitment ensures that personnel will have continued and up-to-date training on a regular basis. We will review these training materials when they are available to ensure that they fully cover modern-day crowd management tactics. In 4 The Department provided attendance logs for these and all relevant training sessions so that we could confirm that the appropriate personnel had, in fact, received training.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 13 | P a g e
particular, we recommend that the Department train on acceptable uses of force in the crowd control context; this was not explicitly trained in the June 2020 and April 2021 training sessions.5 While the general use of force policy applies to all situations, a refresher for use in crowd management is advisable. Because this training has not yet occurred, we deem Recommendation 23 to be in progress.
Recommendation 24, which recommended Department-wide training on topics such as de-escalation, is also in progress. The Department plans to train on these topics in upcoming training cycles. Because this training has not yet occurred and we have not reviewed materials, we deem this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 25 recommended that City leadership conduct a City-wide training event on the Civil Unrest Annex. The Department reported that the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) held this training in October of 2020, but we did not receive information to review regarding this training. As such, we consider this recommendation to be in progress until we receive more information from City and OEM leadership.
Recommendation 36 recommended completing two actions items that emerged from the Department’s own Internal Review Board of the May 31st incident: review of the body-worn camera policy and review of the use of force reporting policy. As we also stated in Recommendation 38, below, the Department issued a Department-wide Training Bulletin regarding the body-worn camera policy and the requirement to activate. We encourage the Department to frequently reference this Training Bulletin in shift briefings and especially in advance of any deployment to major incidents. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
And, as we detail in Recommendation 37, below, the Department is currently training officers in the use of force reporting policy. The Department also updated its use of force policy, Policy 303, to require that all uses of force, including those that occur during civil unrest, be accurately reported before the end of an officer’s shift (see Training, Recommendations 34 and 35).
As such, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 37 recommended that the Department develop and deliver training on documenting uses of force in civil unrest. The Department reported that this recommendation is in progress. The Department reported that it assigned the role of “scribe” to two civilian personnel. In addition to documenting uses of force and counting expended munitions (e.g., canisters), the scribe also documents items of importance, 5 Recent changes in state law, have also placed limitations on the use of less lethal munitions in crowd control situations; SMPD should also be trained on the new state law requirements.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 14 | P a g e
such as the time and location of dispersal orders and conversations by command staff and supervisors. The Department has successfully used scribes in all the recent deployments listed above.
However, this new role has not been codified in any policy or procedure. We recommend that the Department formalize this role by including it in the relevant procedure (e.g., its “Use of Force” and/or its “First Amendment Assemblies” policies).
We also recommend that the Department create and formalize a training program for this position to ensure that every assigned individual understands the role, purpose, and implementation of the scribe position.
The Department also plans on training personnel to verbalize all force deployments on body-worn cameras when in crowd management incidents (see Recommendation 23 on Advanced Officer Training). Officers are trained to verbally identify their intended target, the subject’s actions that necessitate force, and the outcome.6 This direction, and the reminder to activate the body-worn camera, is also included in all new Operations Plans.
We were not provided specific lesson plans that included this training. We look forward to reviewing these materials as they are developed by the Department.
Because these are on-going developments with more work to be done, we consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 38 recommends regular and frequent reminders to activate bodyworn cameras, especially before deployment to crowd management incidents, the Department issued a Department-wide Training Bulletin regarding the body-worn camera policy and the requirement to activate. We encourage the Department to frequently reference this Training Bulletin in shift briefings and especially in advance of any deployment to major incidents. The Department agrees, and informed us that it is including the body-worn camera reminder in its Operations Plans. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 42 acknowledged the impact of the events of 2020 on officers’ wellbeing and recommended that the Department evaluate its systems for supporting officer wellness. The Department has had a Peer Support Program for over 20 years, supplemented and supported by psychologists and chaplains, to help personnel process trauma and other job-related stressors. Following May 31, 2020, and on its one-year anniversary, the Peer Support Team hosted “group stress debriefs” facilitated 6 For example, an officer might state, “the man in the red shirt with a black backpack is actively throwing rocks at the skirmish line. I am deploying one 40mm round. It struck the man on the torso and he fled.”
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 15 | P a g e
by licensed professionals. There has been a significant increase in the number of personnel utilizing services from both the Peer Team and licensed professionals since 2020, and the Peer Support Team membership itself has grown by 20% each year.
These are positive and worthy responses to the trauma and stress of a difficult year, but the Department has also sought to take a more proactive approach that looks toward preventing harmful stress responses. In 2020, it created a new Wellness Team that pairs the Peer Support Program with a broader initiative to promote a “culture of wellness” that addresses emotional and mental health as an officer safety issue. We had the opportunity to meet with the Sergeant who leads the Wellness Team and were impressed by his approach to these issues and his passion for delivering his message to the rest of the Department. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Finally, while not tied to any particular recommendation, we also noted that the Department has implemented new technology to track and report on personnel training status. This technology ensures that officers comply with training requirements, including all in-house training such as Roll Call Briefings. It also allows the Department to accurately report out statistics related to training, as they did for our review. We commend the Training Sergeant for identifying the need for, and implementing, this technology.
Policy Recommendations
Seven recommendations related directly to changes and/or updates to Department policies. The Department reported, and we confirmed, that it has updated their current policies and drafted new language to align with the recommendations. We detail the updates and policy modifications as they pertain to each recommendation below this table.
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
7 The Department should regularly review
and update its Mass Booking Procedures
policy to ensure that the listed contact
information and location and availability of
all itemized equipment is current and
correct.
901.11, Training
and Policy
Section
901.12 Policy
Review Completed
11 SMPD should revise its use of force
policies to either specially define “riotous”
or eliminate the terminology from its
policies.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 16 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
12 SMPD should amend its policy to provide
further guidance regarding deployment of
less lethal munitions, particularly to guard
against injuries to the face and head.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques Completed
17 In crafting dispersal orders to instruct
crowds about the routes of egress from a
protest, SMPD policy and training should
require officers to consider conditions such
as traffic and officer deployment to ensure
the feasibility and safety of any direction
provided about dispersal routes.
433, First
Amendment
Assemblies Completed
18 SMPD policy and training regarding
dispersal orders should be revised to
require personnel officers to include
express warnings about the potential use
of force should the order be defied.
Dispersal order
cards Completed
34 SMPD should develop and approve a use
of force reporting policy/procedure
requiring officers to document force used
in civil unrest situations, or any
circumstance where the subject of a use of
force cannot be identified, and make clear
that in crowd control situations, officers are
expected to document all reportable force,
including each deployment of less lethal
munitions.
303, Use of
Force Completed
35 SMPD should revise its force reporting
policy to require that all documentation of
use of force be completed prior to an
officer completing her/his shift and entrust
supervisors to enforcement of this policy.
303, Use of
Force Completed
Recommendation 7 recognized the new policy on Mass Booking Procedures, Policy 901, the Department created and implemented in the months after May 31, 2020 (and well before the OIR Group report). The written procedures are commendably detailed, including requirements like obtaining contact information and itemized lists of equipment, and our recommendation focused on the need regularly update the policy to account for changes. The Department asserts in its response that the policy will be reviewed every two years. The Department’s commitment to regular review, and assignment of the task to a particular officer responsible for police and procedures updates in the Personnel and Training Unit (within the Professional Standards Section), is sufficient to consider this recommendation to be completed.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 17 | P a g e
Recommendation 11 recommended revising the use of force policy to either specifically define “riotous” or remove the word. We reviewed Policies 303 and 433, “Use of Force” and “First Amendment Assemblies,” and confirm that the Department removed the word “riotous” and replace it with “civil unrest.” We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 12 recommended providing further guidance on deployment of less lethal munitions. We reviewed Policy 303 and found that the Department updated the target areas that “shall be avoided” to include the spine and groin. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 17 recommends that the Department update its Dispersal Order policy to include information about safe routes of egress. We reviewed Procedure 433.0.3, First Amendment Assemblies – Santa Monica Dispersal Order, and found that the new policy, and the related “Dispersal Order Card,” includes this language. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 18 recommends that the Department update its Dispersal Order policy to include warnings about the possible use of and injury from less-lethal munitions. We reviewed Procedure 433.0.3, First Amendment Assemblies – Santa Monica Dispersal Order, and found that the new policy, and the related “Dispersal Order Card,” includes this language. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 34 recommends development of a use of force reporting policy/procedure. The Department updated Procedure 303, Use of Force, to require that officers document and report all uses of force in all situations, including civil unrest.
We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 35 recommends revising the reporting policy to require that all force reports must be completed before the officer’s end of shift. The Department updated Procedure 303, Use of Force, to require that officers document and report all uses of force before their end of shift. Further, supervisors are required to complete their reviews of force reports before the end of the work week.
We discussed the related practical application of use of force reporting and tracking in Training, above. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Accountability, Audit and Oversight Recommendations
Eight recommendations related to issues of accountability, on-going auditing, or oversight. These are summarized in the following table, and individually discussed below the table.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 18 | P a g e
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
8 SMPD should develop a tracking
mechanism, such as a log for less lethal
munitions, specifically to track how many
of which types of munitions are used and
by whom.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques In Progress
9 SMPD should examine the use of the
flashbang device on May 31 through the
lenses of accountability, advisability, and
remediation.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques Completed
10 SMPD should conduct a detailed analysis
regarding whether the Pepperball
deployments on May 31 were consistent
with Department policy and expectations.
Training Docs &
Attendance log In Progress
39 SMPD should identify and consider
appropriate remediation for those officers
who failed to comply with the Department’s
body-worn camera policy on May 31,
2020.
IRB process
under
consideration Completed
40 SMPD should regularly audit body-worn
camera use by officers to ensure that
policy requirements and expectations are
being met in the field regarding activation.
425.10, Review
of Recordings In Progress
41 SMPD should conduct and document a
meaningful administrative review of
officers’ uses of force following civil unrest
situations or other large-scale incidents
and should consider “investigative referral”
of specific uses of force that may be out of
policy or require specific remedial action.
IRB process
under
consideration In Progress
43 The City should request that SMPD
prepare a response to this report indicating
the degree to which it accepts each of the
recommendations made and setting out a
plan for implementation. Completed
44 The City should develop a plan for
independent evaluation and public
reporting on the status of SMPD’s
implementation of the recommendations.
OIR Group
Interim Report Completed
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 19 | P a g e
Recommendation 8 recommended an on-going tracking mechanism for less lethal munitions. As we detailed above in both the Training and Policy sections, the Department reported that it now includes a scribe function in all crowd management deployments. One function of the scribe is to document uses of force. And, to the extent possible, the scribe will collect and count expended less-lethal cartridges. While this somewhat addresses the recommendation in practice (assuming it is used effectively), we found that the Department has not yet documented/defined the new role in policy or procedure.
As a result of Assembly Bill 481, a state-wide law that requires all law enforcement agencies to publish a full account of their military weapons, the Department recently conducted a comprehensive inventory of current munitions and developed a new policy for reporting use and inventory annually that, per statute, requires City Council approval.
The consideration by Council is pending.
The Department also reported that it is developing a worksheet for officers to individually count munitions in their own inventory to better track what each officer carries into the field.
Because these items are still in development, we consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 9 recommended that the use of the flashbang device on May 31st be reviewed. The Department reported that the officer who used the device was immediately counseled in the field; we observed this “counseling” on body-worn camera footage of the day. More importantly with an eye to the future, the Department updated Procedure 303 to prohibit the use of flashbangs (also known as noise-flash distraction devices, or NFDD) on persons in a crowd.
While we would have preferred a more formal remediation for use of the device, as we detail in our discussion of Recommendation 41, below, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 10 recommended that the Department conduct a detailed analysis of Pepperball deployments on May 31st. To date, we have not received any such analysis so consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 41 is also a work in progress. We recommended that the Department conduct a “meaningful administrative review” of all force used on May 31st.
In our original report, we commented that the findings of the Internal Review Board (IRB) held by the Department after May 31st, were too broad and lacked accountability for officers’ specific actions.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 20 | P a g e
The Department reported that upon receiving our recommendation, it conducted a secondary review of all available body-worn camera footage. After that review, the Department informally reported to OIR Group that it did not observe any incidents on May 31st that rose to the level of misconduct. To date, the Department has not provided any documentation of this secondary review to OIR Group but has committed to evaluating May 31st uses of force.
But perhaps the more important aspect today is the Department’s commitment to its IRB process, a process that is designed to hold officers accountable for their actions, whether the “accountability” is formal discipline, directed training, or documented counseling. Department leadership reported that it is currently working to reform the IRB process. These updates will ensure that the Department has an adequate “feedback loop” to ensure that their recommended actions were taken and create a more robust review system.
Because this is an on-going process, we consider these recommendations to be in progress.
Recommendation 39 recommended “appropriate remediation” for officers who failed to activate their body-worn cameras. The Department reported that the remediation was training. And, as described in Recommendation 38 in Training, the Department completed this training Department-wide. While it would have been preferrable for the Department to direct training for the specific officers who failed to activate their bodyworn cameras on May 31st, we consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 40 recommended regular audits of body-worn cameras. The Department reported that, per its existing policy (425.10, “Review of Recordings”) supervisors are required to conduct monthly, random body-worn camera audits.
Unfortunately, the Department does not currently have a system in place to verify that supervisors are conducting these audits on a regular basis. The Department was candid in its admission that it could do better on this score, while also asserting that supervisors are regularly viewing body-worn video in their review of force incidents or public complaints.
New technology – an equipment upgrade of the body-worn camera itself to a new model and of Department technology systems that the Department’s technology officer demonstrated for OIR Group – will enhance the ability to audit and review body-worn camera footage. When the new systems are fully functioning, the Department will have a mechanism to easily and formally confirm that supervisors are performing regular audits in accordance with SMPD policy. We noted that the Department is ahead of other jurisdictions in technology enhancements, especially those related to body-worn
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 21 | P a g e
cameras. We consider this recommendation to be in progress and look forward to reviewing the Department’s new systems when they are in place.
Recommendation 43 recommended that SMPD prepare a response to our May 31st Report, indicate the degree to which it accepted each of the recommendations made, and set out a plan for implementation. This recommendation was completed by creation and presentation of the Information Item delivered in July 2021 and by collaborating on this public report. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Recommendation 44 recommended that the City develop a plan for independent evaluation and public reporting on the status of SMPD’s implementation of the recommendations. That has been fulfilled by this document – a useful starting point for our work on this report, and for our ongoing validation efforts. We consider this recommendation to be completed.
Community Engagement Recommendations
Four of the recommendations required that the Department seek community input regarding decisions on use of tear gas, declaration of an unlawful assembly, use of curfews, and communication. Department leadership reported that it is actively seeking a Project Manager to manage the community engagement aspect of these recommendations so that the community is given an opportunity to collaborate and provide insight.
Rec # Recommendation
Policy or
Evidence Status
14 SMPD should engage with its community
and City leaders to determine whether and
to what degree gas and other less lethal
munitions should be used in the First
Amendment activity context. In Progress
15 After having the above discourse, SMPD
should revise its use of force policy related
to deployment of tear gas and less lethal
impact munitions in crowd control
situations to specify the circumstances, if
any, under which they may be used.
303, Control
Devices and
Techniques In Progress
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 22 | P a g e
20 SMPD and the City should engage with
the community as it considers the
circumstances required for a public protest
to be declared an unlawful assembly. The
resulting guidelines should be publicized in
a way that provides City residents and
stakeholders a clear understanding of
under what circumstances the SMPD will
declare an unlawful assembly. In Progress
32 The City should engage with its community
in developing guidelines on whether and
how curfews should be deployed,
particularly when adjacent to First
Amendment protected activity. In Progress
Recommendation 14 recommended that the Department engage with its community and City leaders to determine whether and to what degree gas and other less lethal munitions should be used in the First Amendment activity context. The Department reported that it is currently working to retain a community engagement specialist/facilitator who will manage this community outreach/conversation process.
We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 15 recommended that, after completing the community engagement listed in Recommendation 14, the Department should revise its use of force policy to incorporate the community’s feedback, specifically as it relates to deployment of tear gas and less lethal impact munitions in crowd control situations; we note that the Department has already made some revisions to the related policies (see Recommendations 11, 12, 17, and 18), but the community outreach piece has not yet occurred. The Department expressed its commitment to further revisions and, again, is in the process of retaining a facilitator to manage the outreach process. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
Recommendation 20 recommended that the Department and the City should engage with the community as it considers the circumstances required for a public protest to be declared an unlawful assembly and publicize the resulting guidelines in a way that provides City residents and stakeholders a clear understanding of under what circumstances the SMPD will declare an unlawful assembly. The Department expressed its commitment to creating these guidelines in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, PSROC, and the community. The Department reported that, here, too, it will use the facilitator to manage the community outreach process, which is the first step to this recommendation. We consider this recommendation to be in progress.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 23 | P a g e
Recommendation 32 recommended that the Department engage with its community in developing guidelines on whether and how curfews should be deployed, particularly when adjacent to First Amendment protected activity. The Department reported that the City Attorney’s Office is also participating in completion of this recommendation by conducting outreach and legal research on the topic of curfews. Here again, the Department plans on using their community outreach facilitator, when hired, to help complete this recommendation. We consider this recommendation to be in progress until we receive more information from the City Attorney’s Office and the Department.
While community engagement specifically applies to these four listed recommendations, the Department may choose to elicit community input on other items as well.
Next Steps
We appreciate the progress that SMPD has made in implementing the 44 recommendations and look forward to receiving additional information regarding implementation of the outstanding recommendations as it becomes available.
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports)
13.A.c
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment C: Santa Monica PD OIR Group Recommendation After Action Status Final (5364 : PSROC Reports) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Darlene <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 13A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I applaud the work of the PSROC contained in their reports, and request council to review and approve the Recommendations contained in their reports.
Darlene Evans
Item 13.A
11/15/22
1 of 2 Item 13.A
11/15/22
13.A.d
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5364 : PSROC Reports) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; David White; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: City Council Meeting 11/15/2022- Agenda Item 13A Public Comments
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, I am grateful for the Council's approval to form the City's Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and look forward to your continued support of independent civilian oversight to strengthen our civilian community's relationships with our public safety organizations and officers.
I urge you to continue supporting the work of the PSROC by thoughtfully reviewing their report and taking the necessary action to adopt the commission's recommendations as laid out in Attachment A to the agenda item including the following:
"1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to completion within 90 days.
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the events of May 2020." Thank you for your continued focus on this incredibly important topic.
Best Regards,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 13.A
11/15/22
2 of 2 Item 13.A
11/15/22
13.A.d
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comment [Revision 1] (5364 : PSROC Reports) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 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 Airport Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024.
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Applicant List
B. Written Comment
16.A
Packet Pg. 526
Revised 11/09/22 at 4 pm
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Airport Commission
Name Application Date
Margaret Falk 5/25/2022
David J. Hopkins 9/27/2022
Eve Lopez 1/23/2022
Joseph A. Pertel 11/07/2022
Kate Scott 5/22/2022
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 5
*Incumbents listed in red
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Applicant List (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: nicole faries <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support longtime Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Nicole Faries
Sunset Park
Item 16.A
11/15/22
1 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Patti Braun <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 3:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and esteemed Councilmembers, I am writing today in support of my friend, long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for appointment to the airport commission.
As a Sunset Park resident since 1991, I am committed to insuring that we continue to move forward on the closure of the Santa Monica Airport in 2028, and I and my husband support its conversion to a “great park” with open green space and recreational facilities, as approved by the majority of our residents in 2014. Joe Pertel shares this commitment and will make a great airport commissioner.
He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He has worked to create opportunities for our Santa Monica students and advocated alongside myself and other parent leaders in support of our excellent schools. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Sunset Park, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during the next few critical years of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, and will promote sustainable use with the expansion of Airport Park. He will staunchly support the Commission, and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Thank you for your consideration of Joe Pertel’s appointment to the Airport Commission.
Patti Braun
Resident and Homeowner,
1811 Pier Avenue, Sunset Park
Item 16.A
11/15/22
2 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lyn Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 10:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the airport commission. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues, a sense of ethics and disciplined thinking that all of us need to see in our politics right now.
I believe Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029. I also trust that if compromises or negotiations are necessary to achieve a good outcome for the city, Jose will approach them with knowledge, integrity, and reasoned discourse - which we sorely need right now. --
Lyn Greenberg
Ocean Park
Item 16.A
11/15/22
3 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Hongfang Tan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 6:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Sincerely,
Hongfang (Wendy) Tan
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. v.173.295 Thank you.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
4 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Dennis Dunbar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 5:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
In addition to Joe’s work on some great causes I’ve known him since our daughters played soccer together in the Santa Monica AYSO. Joe was always a great presence on the sidelines in those days helping support the team and in guiding the kids in their growth as athletes and good kids.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Dennis Dunbar
310-463-1677
Blog: http://dunbardigital.com/blog/
Website: http://www.dunbardigital.com
Co-Author - Photoshop Restoration & Retouching - 4th Edition Item 16.A
11/15/22
5 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Richard Tahvildaran Jesswein <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Richard Jesswein
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Council Members:
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Ph.D.
23 year resident, North of Montana
Item 16.A
11/15/22
6 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Asa Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a resident, business owner, and homeowner in Sunset Park, I write to support the application by long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, to join the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Asa Greenberg
2315 Pier Ave.
_
Asa Greenberg
Argonaut Pictures, LLC
[email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
7 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: JESSICA TUCK <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council
I am writing an email of support for Sunset Park resident , Joe Pertel , for the Santa Monica Airport Commission . I have known him for 30 years and he is an amazing man of integrity.
His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate.
Please make the right decision and appoint him.
Many thanks,
Jessica Tuck
Sunset Park resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
8 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: janet carpenter <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
RE: Joe Pertel/ Airport Commission
I have known Joe Pertel as a neighbor and friend for 20+ years. He is an active member of the Santa Monica community and our neighborhood.
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Janet Carpenter
2415 28th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
-
janet carpenter
[email protected]
cell: 310 502 5163
Item 16.A
11/15/22
9 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Sarah Starks <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 11:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I strongly support longtime Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Sarah Starks
Sunset Park resident since 2009
Item 16.A
11/15/22
10 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Andrew Gumbel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I have known Joe Pertel for many years and can strongly endorse his appointment to the Santa Monica Airport Commission. It's hard, in fact, to imagine a stronger candidate: a public interest lawyer with deep experience of the sorts of complex issues that the airport closure presents, a long-time Sunset Park resident who is known and respected in the community and has given back in countless ways, and -- not insignificantly -- a lovely, easy-going man who is likely to get along excellently with his fellow commissioners and with the rest of the city leadership.
We all want the airport closure and its scheduled conversion into a park to go smoothly. Joe is the ideal person to ensure just that.
I would urge you all to approve his appointment.
With many thanks
Andrew Gumbel
Sunset Park
--
Andrew Gumbel
reporter - author
+1 310 365-9724
www.andrewgumbel.com
Item 16.A
11/15/22
11 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rebecca Haggerty <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:
I write to strongly support Joe Pertel for the airport commission.
I have lived in Santa Monica for 12 years, I am a home-owner and have been active in many aspects of Santa Monica community life.
I have known Joe for many years, and I believe he would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations, and a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
I feel confident Joe will prioritize our community interests during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). He will be scrupulous in mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
I strongly support Joe Pertel as a member of the airport commission and urge the City Council to do the same.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 917-664-3643 or via return email with any questions.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Haggerty
Item 16.A
11/15/22
12 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 A - support Joe Pertel appointment for Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Support Joe Pertel for Airport Commission appointment.
Councilmembers,
Joe Pertel is the only applicant who clearly supports the transformation of Santa Monica Airport land into a Great Park.
Over 60% of the voters passed Measure LC affirming their desire for recreation and park space on airport land.
As density in our City increases, so does the value of public parkland. Our current pandemic has emphasized the necessity of open space for residents to enjoy. Children and adults want more playing fields, Pickle Ball courts, and recreational space.
We don’t need a Commissioner who is an aviation advocate. We need a Commissioner to help usher in the next chapter for the airport land—park land for the enjoyment of all. Mr. Pertel’s legal expertise is an additional asset as the City plans this transformation.
Cathy Larson
Sunset Park Resident
Airport 2 Park Boardmember
Item 16.A
11/15/22
13 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: pattyhmj <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commissioner
EXTERNAL
We will add we would like Joe Pertel to be commissioner of Santa Monica Airport.
Thank you
67 year resident of Santa Monica
Patty Laurie
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 16.A
11/15/22
14 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Roger Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council Members,
I support the appointment of Joe Pertel for the open Airport Commission Role.
Mr. Pertel's vision of transforming the Santa Monica Airport into a Grand Park aligns with my view how the space should be repurposed. His legal expertise will compliment his role as the City navigates this process.
Thank you,
Roger Allen
Sunset Park Resident
Email [email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
15 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: pattyhmj <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Thank you we would like to say we want Joe Pertel on the Airport commission Thank you
67 year resident of Santa Monica
Patty Laurie
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 16.A
11/15/22
16 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Matty Wilder <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject: Item 16A - Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please appoint JOSEPH PERTEL to the Airport Commission.
Joe is a longtime community member and advocate who is committed to working on behalf of the health and well-being of all Santa Monicans. As a public-interest attorney, he will bring significant legal expertise to the Commission, which will be a valuable asset as the City plans the transition from an airport to a great park.
Please also oppose the other four applicants, who are all pro-airport and will fight against the City's stated plans to close the airport at the end of 2028. Additionally, City Staff already has plenty of aviation experience and expertise to ensure that the airport will continue to be operated properly and safely as long as it remains open.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matty Wilder
Sunset Park resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
17 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dana Newman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 3:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members:
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for appointment to the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make an outstanding airport commissioner. I have known him since our children attended Grant Elementary School together from 2004-2009. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Dana Newman
Sunset Park Resident
Member, Santa Monica Library Board
Item 16.A
11/15/22
18 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: ANTONIO LYSY <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 3:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:
We strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
We feel Joe Pertel would be a great asset as airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Antonio and Margaret Lysy
Santa Monica Neighborhood
2470 Hill Street
Antonio Lysy
UCLA Herb Alpert School of Music
Item 16.A
11/15/22
19 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Joan Wilder <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject: Item 16A - Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please appoint JOSEPH PERTEL to the Airport Commission.
Joe is a longtime community member who has been volunteering in Santa Monica for decades. As a public-interest attorney, he will bring significant legal expertise to the Commission, which will be a valuable asset as the City plans the transition from an airport to a great park.
Please also oppose the other four applicants, who are all pro-airport and will fight against the City's stated plans to close the airport at the end of 2028. Additionally, City Staff already has plenty of aviation experience and expertise to ensure that the airport will continue to be operated properly and safely as long as it remains open.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joan Wilder
Item 16.A
11/15/22
20 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Dennis Wilder <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra Subject: RE: Item 16A - Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please appoint JOSEPH PERTEL to the Airport Commission.
Joe is a longtime community member who has been volunteering in Santa Monica for decades. As a publicinterest attorney, he will bring significant legal expertise to the Commission, which will be a valuable asset as the City plans the transition from an airport to a great park.
Please also oppose the other four applicants, who are all pro-airport and will fight against the City's stated plans to close the airport at the end of 2028. Additionally, City Staff already has plenty of aviation experience and expertise to ensure that the airport will continue to be operated properly and safely as long as it remains open.
Thank you.
Dennis G. Wilder, PhD
Item 16.A
11/15/22
21 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Fue Pan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 5:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Mr. Pertel have a long history of being enthusiastic about public service, he would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Thanks,
Fue Pan
Sr. Oracle DBA/Architect
Antech Corp.
http://www.antechdiagnostics.com
o:657-304-2695
c:310-893-4937
e: [email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
22 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Megan Fitzgerald <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment.
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Megan FitzGerald
Sunset Park
Item 16.A
11/15/22
23 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: John Fairweather <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject: Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly recommend that you appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
Not only does he have a deep understanding of aviation issues, but he is a long term Santa Monica resident with a history of volunteering. Joe is an attorney and his experience on the airport commission will be very useful when the airport closes in 2028 as the city plans and executes the transition to a great park.
Other applicants for the position all oppose the City’s rights to determine the future of SMO and are pro-airport. I believe each of these other applicants would act to to thwart City decisions at the airport at every opportunity.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Fairweather
Item 16.A
11/15/22
24 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 7:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment - Support for Joseph A. Pertel Attachments: 520pmOctober25th2022.png
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Member,
Every day, 35,000 Sunset Park, Ocean Park, and Pico neighborhood residents must endure the constant harmful impacts of noise and pollution from Santa Monica Airport.
Yet only 20 or so Santa Monica residents (data directly from airplane flight operation registrations) fly out of Santa Monica Airport on any given day.
Our vast number of our residents need representation on the Airport Commission by someone who will be able to give community input on SMO safety and operations that will help address the harmful issues that are impacting our 35,000 residents.
I support Joseph A. Pertel to be our representative on the Airport Commission. He will make an excellent, knowledgeable, fair, and honest Airport Commissioner.
Joseph A. Pertel will support all users of SMO such that operations are safe, as well as support the needs of our residents to reduce SMO’s harmful impacts while it remains.
Joseph A. Pertel is also unique in that he can help advise and facilitate the planning for the closure of SMO in just *6* years!
We must begin that planning right now!
Our residents need representation by someone will reflect the needs of the greatest number of our residents.
We cannot afford to have a commissioner who beholden to needs of the AOPA aviation lobby or will actively work to prevent the closure of SMO for the privileged few who reap all the benefits of SMO, at the expense of the health and wellbeing of THOUSANDS of our residents.
Sincerely,
Item 16.A
11/15/22
25 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 16.A
11/15/22
26 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
27 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tina Tan-Pertel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 10:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A)- Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I wholeheartedly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission. I have been a resident of Sunset Park since 1998.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to public service in Santa Monica. He is a longtime Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations, including Team Santa Monica swim team, Santa Monica United/Surf soccer club, and Elemental Strings. He has also volunteered his time for the music and sports programs at Santa Monica High School, including its band and choir programs, literary magazines, soccer, swimming, and water polo programs.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Hongying Tan, MD, PhD
Sunset Park Neighborhood
Item 16.A
11/15/22
28 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: support
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern, I strongly support Joe Pertel for the Santa monica Airpot Commission.
His experience and knowledge and motives are what we need to support our plan for the airport to park! Signed, PIER Ave. residemt
Item 16.A
11/15/22
29 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Sanjeev Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - support for Joe Pertel for the airport commission
EXTERNAL
I, Sanjeev Jain, have resided in Sunset Park since 2002, and have known Joe Pertel and seen his work all these years.
I wholeheartedly support Joe Pertel for the airport commission.
Joe would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Sanjeev Jain
2321 27th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
30 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Dawn Joyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A - Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Item 16A - Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission Dear Council Members,
Please appoint JOSEPH PERTEL to the Airport Commission.
Joe is a longtime community member who has been volunteering in Santa Monica for decades. As a publicinterest attorney, he will bring significant legal expertise to the Commission, which will be a valuable asset as the City plans the transition from an airport to a great park.
Please also oppose the other four applicants, who are all pro-airport and will fight against the City's stated plans to close the airport at the end of 2028. Additionally, City Staff already has plenty of aviation experience and expertise to ensure that the airport will continue to be operated properly and safely as long as it remains open.
Mrs D Joyal
Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
31 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Nancy Owens <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 8:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: Item 16A - Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please appoint JOSEPH PERTEL to the Airport Commission.
Joe is a longtime community member who has been volunteering in Santa Monica for decades. As a public-interest attorney, he will bring significant legal expertise to the Commission, which will be a valuable asset as the City plans the transition from an airport to a great park.
Please also oppose the other four applicants, who are all pro-airport and will fight against the City's stated plans to close the airport at the end of 2028. Additionally, City Staff already has plenty of aviation experience and expertise to ensure that the airport will continue to be operated properly and safely as long as it remains open.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Owens
Santa Monica, CA
Item 16.A
11/15/22
32 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: jon kean <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 12:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A--November 15, 2022 Meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Esteemed City Councilmembers
I am writing to you in support of the application of Joe Pertel for the vacancy on the Airport Commission.
We, as a community, need smart and thoughtful people to provide guidance and serve as liaisons as we approach the anticipated closure of the airport and its potential future uses in the coming years. Joe Pertel is such a person.
In addition to being a long time Sunset Park resident, Joe has spent decades in his professional career navigating complex issues as a public interest attorney. He has demonstrated a fervent commitment to Santa Monica and its residents through his local advocacy and will provide a reasoned and analytical voice to any future discussions.
At a time when the health and safety of our community, as well as maintaining and growing open spaces, is a priority for the vast majority of residents, Joe can champion both.
As a sitting school board member, I have seen the impact of Joe's advocacy and intellect.
He has never shared an opinion on any issue without deep research and contemplation.
There is no "go along to get along" with him but at the same time, I have never seen him to stay fixed on his own assumptions and beliefs if the facts show a different path.
We need thoughtful people like Joe Pertel on the Airport Commission as we only have one opportunity to get this right.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments
Jon Kean
SMMUSD Board of Education Member, As an individual.
Jon Kean
[email protected]
http://www.afterauschwitz.com
Item 16.A
11/15/22
33 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Perryadle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 12:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 1(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
My husband and I wholeheartedly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the airport commission.
We believe that Joe would make a wonderful airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our Sunset Park neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing fro the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2019, Sincerely,
Perry and Dave Clennon
27th Street
Sunset Park
Santa Monica
Item 16.A
11/15/22
34 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Susan Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - support for Joe Pertel for the airport commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Colleagues,
Today I write to wholeheartedly support Joseph Pertel for the airport commission.
As a Sunset Park resident since 2002, I have observed Joseph Pertel’s constant work on behalf of our community. As a member of the airport commission, I am confident that he will serve the interests of our neighborhood and ALL of the people who live and work in Santa Monica.
The son of a Navy pilot, Joe is a criminal defense attorney/ former LA County Public Defender who knows how the government and legal system work. He is experienced in analyzing complex situations & stories and has devoted his life to seeking justice for people of all backgrounds. Joe, who has studied abroad and speaks fluent Mandarin, is part of a diverse family that includes first-generation immigrants, members of our Native American community, and the LGBTQ+ community.
Joe is a parent of two daughters who went through SMMUSD schools. He has been an active parent volunteer and fundraiser and has served on the advisory boards of several local sports and arts organizations including Team Santa Monica (swimming) and Elemental Strings (music). In recent years he has been an active fundraiser and promoter of the Santa Monica Youth Orchestra, a world music program based in Virginia Park that offers free world music instruction to local youth.
As a neighborhood representative to the airport commission, I am confident Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, Item 16.A
11/15/22
35 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Susan Jain
2321 27th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
36 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Alicia Mignano <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 11:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A)- Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Alicia Mignano
Pico Neighborhood
--
Alicia Mignano
503.962.0703 (text)
AliciaForSMMUSD.com
Item 16.A
11/15/22
37 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
38 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: marianne smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel for Santa Monica Airport Commision
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Marianne Smith
3014 17th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
39 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 12:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White Cc: Caroline M. Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Andrew Wilder; Diane Reynolds; Joe Schmitz; Geoffrey Neri; Stelios Makrides
Subject: SMO: SM City Council Meeting November 15, 2022 - Item 16A - Santa Monica Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
RE: SMO -- SM City Council Meeting November 15, 2022 - Item 16A - Santa Monica Airport Commission
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
Kate Scott should NOT be appointed to the Airport Commission. As a reminder, in October 2017, she filed a lawsuit against the SM City Council in Los Angeles Superior Court although it was later moved to U.S. District Courts, California Central District. It halted and delayed the runway shortening project. See the note below for more details on the lawsuit.
Eve Lopez should NOT be appointed to the Airport Commission. As a reminder, in April 2022, she filed a Brown Act Complaint against the SM Airport Commission based on her own misinformation. Additionally, she continues to intimidate people -- including local residents and city leaders. I personally received a threatening email directly from her mentioning my employer, birthdate, address, and communications with City Council Members and Airport Commissioners. This example and others can be provided if requested. I believe she is an loose canon with very poor judgement.
Both Kate and Eve would be real problems on the Airport Commission, and I have no doubt their participation on the Airport Commission would lead to further litigation against the City. Please do not appoint any potential commissioner who will obstruct the significant progress made over the many decades.
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission. SMO is scheduled to close in only 72 months in December 2028, and Joe Pertel's interests align with the City of Santa Monica and its residents. His expertise as a 27-year public interest attorney, combined with his knowledge and active involvement in community matters makes him invaluable (see his application - link). With his highly relevant experience and qualifications he will make an excellent advisor to City Council on the many important and complex matters related to SMO and its ongoing transition over the next 72 months.
The path to closure is cleared for the City, per:
(1) 2014 Charter Amendment and Measure LC (https://itsourland.org) (2) 2017 Consent Decree
(https://smofuture.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/0/1/31010165/2017_consent_decree.pdf) Item 16.A
11/15/22
40 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 (3) 2017 SM City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 (CCS) (http://bit.ly/SMO-ClosureResolution) PRIVATE aviation, with its impactful noise, pollution, dangers, and public costs, have occupied our public land for far too long. Please continue forward with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform our public land so that we can all benefit and enjoy it.
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Santa Monica Airport Commission.
Notes: Links to additional information about Kate Scott's lawsuit against Santa Monica:
• https://surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2017/May2017/05_09_2017_New_Lawsuit_Seeks_to_Invalidate_Santa_Monica_Airport_Consent_Decr ee.html
• https://archive.kpcc.org/news/2017/10/09/76487/judge-orders-santa-monica-airport-runwayshortenin/ • https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-scott-et-al-v-city-council-for-the-city-of-santa-monica577173#case-details • https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/22664010/Scott_et_al_v_City_Council_for_the_City _of_Santa_Monica
Thank you,
Ben Wang
30th Street
Item 16.A
11/15/22
41 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 12:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: Item 16-A - Airport Commission appointment support Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Honorable Councilmembers,
I urge you to appoint Joe Pertel to the vacant seat on the Airport Commission.
Joe's lived in Sunset Park for a long time, is very familiar with the issues regarding SMO and has been an involved member of our community in many ways.
He's an experienced lawyer with a keen legal mind and affable personality.
He would be a fine addition to the Commission.
Regards,
Ted Winterer.
--
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
42 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 12:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
My family has known Joe and his family for over 10 years. During that time, Joe has been heavily involved in the community, and in particular with youth soccer (AYSO, Clubs) as well as the various Santa Monica music programs. He has raised two amazing daughters through the public school system and has deep care for the community.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Steaven Chen
Resident – 1045 23rd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Cell: 310-925-8482
Item 16.A
11/15/22
43 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Hans Berggren <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Meeting Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
I fully support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe would be a diligent, informed, and thoughtful presence on the commission. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
I trust that the community will be well served by Joe during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). He will promote sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively support the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Please give serious consideration to the candidacy of Joe Pertel for Airport commissioner.
Thank you,
Hans Berggren
Ocean Park, Santa Monica
Item 16.A
11/15/22
44 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Julia Carnahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members,
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate.
Joe’s work in the community on behalf of others has long impressed me. He’s extremely knowledgable, caring, and generous.
Please appoint him.
Julia Carnahan
2239 27th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Cell: 323-244-9663
Email: [email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
45 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Debbie Mulvaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I wholeheartedly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Thanks.
Debbie Mulvaney
Mulvaney Business Advisors
310-600-1864
Item 16.A
11/15/22
46 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Lutz, Joseph <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lutz, Joseph
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:
Please nominate Joe Pertel to the empty Airport Commission seat.
Best regards,
Joe Lutz
Joseph Lutz | Senior Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP
2029 Century Park East | Suite 3500 | Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Direct: +1-310-201-1545 | Mobile: +1-310-717-3692 | Fax: +1-310-551-8345 [email protected] | www.seyfarth.com To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
47 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Gregg Chadwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Endorse Joe Pertel for the Empty Airport Commission Seat
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I Endorse Joe Pertel for the Empty Airport Commission Seat. As a Santa Monica homeowner and a small business owner with my business in the city of Santa Monica, I know that we need a forward thinking leader to fill the empty Airport Commission seat. Joe is an attorney and Sunset Park resident who is willing to step in and help guide the city towards the closure of SMO, protect impacted residents, and insure safe operation in the meantime.
A resolution to close SMO was made by the City Council in 2017, and most importantly residents voted citywide and passed measure LC in 2014 to turn the land into a park, cultural, and recreational center as residents intended way back in 1926 when the land was purchased by a park bond.
The airport is likely the most underutilized piece of property in Santa Monica. It is time to start converting empty land no longer needed for the dwindling airport into uses residents can enjoy including sports fields and courts, walking paths, and more. This can be done in affordable steps as other cities in the USA and abroad have accomplished upon closing their airports with great success.
As an official body of residents, it is important to see that the Airport Commission is made of residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of the community, and not developers and aviation interests.
Thank you,
Gregg Chadwick
2308 Schader Drive #206
Sata Monica, CA 90404
www.greggchadwick.com
Item 16.A
11/15/22
48 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Alan Levenson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A - Airport Commission Seat
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission
Begin forwarded message:
From: NoJets <[email protected]>
Subject: Action: New Airport Commissioner Recommendation Date: November 13, 2022 at 2:23:47 PM PST
To: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: NoJets <[email protected]>
Item 16.A
11/15/22
49 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 View this email in your browser
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Send a quick note to the City Council asking
to appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport
Commission.
Joe is an attorney and Sunset Park resident who is willing to step in and help guide the city towards the closure of SMO, protect impacted residents, and insure safe operation in the meantime.
A resolution to close SMO was made by the City Council in 2017, and most importantly residents voted citywide and passed measure LC in 2014 to turn the land into a park, cultural, and recreational center as residents intended way back in 1926 when the land was purchased by a park bond.
The airport is likely the most underutilized piece of property in Santa Monica. It is time to start converting empty land no longer needed for the dwindling airport into uses residents can enjoy including sports fields and courts, walking paths, and more. This can be done in affordable steps as other cities in the USA and abroad have accomplished upon closing their airports with great success.
As an official body of residents, it is important to see that the Airport Commission is made of residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of the community, and not developers and aviation interests.
Send a note endorsing Joe Pertel for the empty Airport
Commission seat, and any additional thoughts you may have to the council:
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
Send to: [email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
50 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Thank you!
Alan Levenson
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. "A drop of effort can create a sea of change."
It is important to keep this list alive and growing. Please ask a neighbor to email us to add them to this list. Together we are stronger. And it is free! Send requests or email addresses to add to the list: [email protected].
Copyright © 2022 No Jets SMO, All rights reserved.
Thank you for your continued support to reduce airport impacts and improve our quality of life.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Email Marketing Powered by
Mailchimp
Item 16.A
11/15/22
51 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 Alan Levenson
www.alanlevenson.com
Item 16.A
11/15/22
52 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: David K <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Council Meeting Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
I first got to know Joe when I moved to Montana Avenue in Santa Monica in 2010. I had taken over as executive director of the largest and oldest youth swim team in Santa Monica (Team Santa Monica). Joe volunteered to serve on the board and was selected vice-president. Often when people serve on boards, they offer opinions a few hours a month. Joe offered sweat and real help. No job or task was beneath him; breaking down tents at events, loading ice into coolers, and sitting through numerous committee meetings for special projects. He also helped our board navigate legal issues that periodically arose with ease. I have no doubt that if selected Joe will serve just as tirelessly in this role.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
David Kelsheimer
Team USA Olympic Coach
Item 16.A
11/15/22
53 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Edward McQueeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe to the Airport Commission! He is a fair and honest choice who represents the views of residents well.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 16.A
11/15/22
54 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Jimbeamer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16A-Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Hi
We would like to see Joe Pertel assigned to the the SMO Airport Commission.
As a resident living near the airport we like Joe and his ideas regarding the future of the airport.
Thank You
Jim
Item 16.A
11/15/22
55 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jonathan Stein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
City Councilpersons,
Joe Pertel should be appointed to the SMAC to close the Airport.
Jonathan Stein
Law Offices of Jonathan Stein, PC
2520 Murrell Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
310-968-4455
[email protected]
www.jsteinlaw.com
[This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error, and then immediately delete this message. Thank you.] Item 16.A
11/15/22
56 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Sejon Ding <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Sunset Park resident and attorney to the Airport Commission.
Best regards,
Sejon Ding
Pristine Windows, Inc
Tel: 310-446-8180
www.pristinewindows.com
Item 16.A
11/15/22
57 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: David Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment - Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Please support Joe Pertel for the Airport Commission. He is a longstanding Sunset Park resident and thoughtful participant in community issues.
thanks,
David Kaplan
2419 Pier Avenue
Item 16.A
11/15/22
58 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: William Fordes <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council
As a thirty year resident of Santa Monica, and one of the original supporters of the Proposition that prevailed so spectacularly in the Airport to Park process, I lend my support to Joe Pertel for appointment to the Airport Commission.
The overwhelming majority of the voters who participated in the proposition elections supported CLOSURE of the airport and construction of a park. That OVERWHELMING majority did not consist of air plane pilots and others personally, financially interested in continued operation of the airport. Rather, the support was from people tired of the noise, the danger, the pollution and the unnecessary associated health risks. The support, that is, was from people who wanted the airport closed forever. Now, however, there are pilots and airport cronies sitting on the Commission. That is why Joe Pertel should be appointed. He is a member of the community who supports closure, is not personally motivated by financial considerations to keep the airport from closing, and as such is representative of the huge majority that voted to close the airport.
Please appoint Mr Pertel to the open seat on the airport commission Sincerely,
Bill Fordes
2308 27th St
SM CA 90405
“Nobody knows anybody…not that well….”
— Miller’s Crossing
Item 16.A
11/15/22
59 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Alan Kerner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the airport commission. He is committed to following the City Counsel and residents of Santa Monica wishes regarding the future of the airport.
Sincerely,
Alan Kerner
1761 Sunset Ave
Santa Monica CA 9040
Sent from my iPad
Item 16.A
11/15/22
60 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: V N Davich <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Nomination for Airport Commission: Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
As a former boardmember of SMPL, I am nominating Joe Pertel for appointment to the Airport Commission.
Joe is an attorney and Sunset Park resident who is willing to step in and help guide the city towards the closure of SMO, protect impacted residents, and insure safe operation of the airport and upcoming matters.
thank you for your consideration
Victor Davich
Item 16.A
11/15/22
61 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Allison <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I endorse Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Hello-
As a resident of Sunset Park, (2211 Pier Avenue), my husband and I both support Joe Pertel for the vacant Airport Commission seat. Thank you! Allison Greene
Item 16.A
11/15/22
62 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellen Hannan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel for airport commission
EXTERNAL
I attended the community meetings for the airport vision. These were held before the Airport to Park plans and ballot issue.
I strongly support a city resident to be placed on the commission.
Please consider Joe Pertel.
Ellen Hannan
Item 16.A
11/15/22
63 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Will Guston <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16/A Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
It is my recommendation that you appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission. Joe Lives in Sunset Park and cares deeply about this beautiful area of Santa Monica and the impact that SMO has on the neighborhood and All of Santa Monica and the surrounding area.
He is prepared to help create a wonderful future for the airport as it closes and transitions to a great park that will Enhance the quality of life of many people.
Place Joe Pertel on the Airport Commission.
Respectfully
Will Guston
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
64 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Elin Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/ Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I urge you to appoint Joe Pertel to the airport commission. He lives in the area affected by the airport and will help enforce the will of the residents who passed measure LC.
Thank you,
Elin Katz
3017 Dahlgren Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90066
Item 16.A
11/15/22
65 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Airport2Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject: Airport Commission Appointment - Please appoint Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Airport 2 Park Foundation supports the appointment of Joseph Pertel to fill the current Airport Commission vacancy.
Mr. Pertel’s vision of the future of the Airport property aligns with that of the Santa Monica Airport 2 Park Foundation—a Great Park for the enjoyment of ALL.
Santa Monica residents passed Measure LC with a 60% majority affirming their desire for the Airport land to be transformed into park space and recreational uses.
Mr. Pertel is a longtime Santa Monica resident who understands the needs of the residents of Santa Monica. He has raised a family in Santa Monica during which time he was involved in youth sports, Santa Monica Music programs, and community service.
As the son of a Navy pilot, Mr Pertel grew up surrounded by aviation and has a “deep appreciation and respect for military and civil aviation.”
As a practicing attorney, his law expertise will be a valuable asset analyzing and understanding the complexities of aviation regulations, the consent decree, and other legal issues that may arise as the City moves toward closure of SMO.
Appointing Joseph Pertel to the Airport Commission would be another step towards the realization of a much needed great urban park in the Santa Monica.
Santa Monica Airport 2 Park Board
Item 16.A
11/15/22
66 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Robert Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council - Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am writing to strongly endorse JOE PERTEL to fill the vacant seat on the Santa Monica Airport Commission.
In 2014, I worked hard to pass MEASURE LC and defeat Measure D. In walking street after street I listened to the residents’ concerns about the effects of noise, pollution, particulate contamination and lead poisoning on them and their families. Thankfully our efforts paid off and MEASURE LC passed overwhelmingly while the well-funded Measure D went down in flames. The city is excited for December of 2028 and the closure of SMO. It can’t come soon enough! Joe Pertel has come along at the right moment. His wisdom, intelligence, diligence and patience will be huge assets to both the Airport Commission and to the Council as we move closer to 2028. I have known Joe for many years as our girls have been friends since middle school at JAMS. And our paths probably crossed years ago at Yale as we both sang in a cappella singing groups. What I know is that Joe is a fair listener, a curious questioner and a pro-active thinker. His analytic voice and his legal expertise will only enhance the work of the Commission.
I URGE YOU to vote YES on Joe Pertel’s appointment to the Airport Commission.
Sincerely,
Robert Brown
E: [email protected]
M: 310.795.5353
2401 Pier Avenue
SAnta Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
67 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Stephen Unger <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please appoint Joe Pertel to the SM Airport Commission!
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the SM Airport Commission! I know something about selecting great leadership ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._Unger ) Joe is a great choice for this key position.
Thank you, good luck and kind rgds,
Stephen A. Unger
Long Time Homeowner and Taxpayer
Sea Colony 1
Santa Monica, CA
Item 16.A
11/15/22
68 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Louis Ssutu <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I respectfully endorse Joe Pertel to fill the vacant seat on the Commission.
Thank you.
Sincere regards,
Lou Ssutu
Resident of Ocean Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
69 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Garneau <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Endorsing Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
It would be so exciting to see the dreams and plans for the SM airport made real. It is a sadly empty space and deserves better use than for a few wealthy plane owners. Cheers to Joe who is ready to move the good ideas forward. Ann Garneau
Item 16.A
11/15/22
70 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
I Chutney Li support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Chutney Li
Sunset Park resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
71 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16A Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
As a Sunset Park resident and an advocate for the health and safety of Santa Monica, its visitors and neighbors, I wish to endorse Joe Pertel for a seat on the Airport Commission because of his commitment to improve quality of life for airport neighbors and for Santa Monica residents by helping us return the land to a more sustainable and enjoyable space that was once Clover Field.
Thank you
Lisa Sandbank
Item 16.A
11/15/22
72 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: deeonn la <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support of long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community would make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him to the Commission.
Thanks,
DeAnne Ozaki, Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
73 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jckoury <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joseph Pertel's application for the Airport Commission ...
EXTERNAL
Dear Council-members:
I am a resident of the Pico-Ocean Park community as well as a local business owner. My family and I have been residents since 1996.
I am writing to offer my support for Joe Pertel's appointment to the Airport Commission. Mr. Pertel worked for me at the Los Angeles Public Defender's Office in 1998 and since then he and I have worked together professionally and been neighbors while our children attended the Santa Monica schools.
Mr. Pertel is hard working, conscientious and dedicated to improving our community. In our discussions about the future of the airport, he has repeatedly expressed his desire, consistent with so many people in our community, to mitigating the harmful impact the airport has on our residents and ultimately shutting down the operations of the airport and re-purposing that property as park space.
Mr. Pertel has no personal interest in the appointment except to see the end of the negative health and safety impacts the airport has on Santa Monica residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joel Koury
LAW OFFICES OF JOEL C. KOURY
3435 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 107-50
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Office: 424-248-8670
Cell: 310-560-2001
Item 16.A
11/15/22
74 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Betsy Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to ask that you appoint Joe Pertel to the empty seat on the Airport Commission. Joe is a Santa Monica resident who shares my vision of the future of SMO. I look forward to the closure of SMO and the great space that can then be used for all Santa Monica residents to enjoy - park land and a recreational center.
In the meantime, Joe will help to insure safe operation of SMO - a great concern to this resident who lives under the flight path and worries about the toxic air pollution created by the use of avgas and the old leaky gas tanks that sit over our aquifer.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Betsy Katz
310-415-0130
.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
75 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Stephen Li <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment.
EXTERNAL
I Stephen Li support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Stephen Li
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
76 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Cris Armstrong <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport commission
EXTERNAL
Appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
Joe is an attorney and Sunset Park resident who is willing to step in and help guide the city towards the closure of SMO, protect impacted residents, and insure safe operation in the meantime.
A resolution to close SMO was made by the City Council in 2017, and most importantly residents voted citywide and passed measure LC in 2014 to turn the land into a park, cultural, and recreational center as residents intended way back in 1926 when the land was purchased by a park bond.
The airport is likely the most underutilized piece of property in Santa Monica. It is time to start converting empty land no longer needed for the dwindling airport into uses residents can enjoy including sports fields and courts, walking paths, and more. This can be done in affordable steps as other cities in the USA and abroad have accomplished upon closing their airports with great success.
As an official body of residents, it is important to see that the Airport Commission is made of residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of the community, and not developers and aviation interests.
Cris Armstrong
2016 Ashland Ave
Santa Monica, Ca 90405
Get Outlook for iOS
Item 16.A
11/15/22
77 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: John Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
John Smith
Sunset Park resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
78 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Steven Novak <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council --
I have been a resident of Ocean Park since February 1990 and am in favor of closing the Santa Monica Airport in favor of less noisy activities like recreational spaces and parks.
I endorse Joe Pertel for the vacant airport commission seat.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Novak
Item 16.A
11/15/22
79 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Item 16.A
11/15/22
80 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Maitra-Konell Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the SMO Airport Commission.
Thank you
Item 16.A
11/15/22
81 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Cyn Yamashiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - Joe Pertel Application for Airport Commission Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council Members,
My name is Cyn Yamashiro and I am a resident of Sunset Park. Both my adult sisters and Mother are also residents of Sunset Park. Collectively, we are three households that will be impacted by how Santa Monica allows the airport to be developed. Given our vested interest in a thoughtful and considered process, I wholeheartedly and strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel has served on the boards of many local youth organizations and a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues. He has represented countless youth in delinquency proceedings and is well regarded in Los Angeles as a criminal defense attorney. In addition, Joe Pertel serves on the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Independent Defender Program Executive Committee. In that capacity, Joe has repeatedly demonstrated both a commitment to a fair and just process in dealing with issues presented to the committee, but also the ability to make tough and reasoned decisions.
These are, of course, critical years for the Santa Monica Airport and Joe is dedicated to mitigating Santa Monica Airport health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Cyn Yamashiro
1302 Pearl Street
Item 16.A
11/15/22
82 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
83 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
Please appoint Joe Pertel for the empty Airport Commission Seat.
The Airport Commission needs to consist of residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of the community, and not developers and aviation interests.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.A
11/15/22
84 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Yolanda Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Application for the Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members,
As a Sunset Park resident, I enthusiastically support Joe Pertel's appointment to the Airport Commission. In Santa Monica schools and politics, Mr. Pertel has been active in several community programs.
His level-headedness, great communication skills, and dedication to the betterment of Santa Monica make him an excellent candidate for the position. Consistent with the wishes of so many in our community, he has expressed his desire to mitigate the harm caused by the airport to our residents and ultimately shut down operations so that the property can be repurposed as a park.
Besides ending the negative health and safety impacts the airport has on Santa Monica residents, Mr.
Pertel has no personal interest in the appointment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yolanda Lewis
Item 16.A
11/15/22
85 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Douglas Family Gmail <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 7:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
To The Honorable City Council,
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. Joe is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a fellow Sunset Park resident, with a child in Samohi, I trust Joe to keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
I have known him for nearly three decades and emphatically support Joe Pertel for the SM Airport Commission.
Hyun Im
1828 Pearl
310.804.4973
Item 16.A
11/15/22
86 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Sheila Forsander <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 7:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Strong support for Joe Pertel for SM Airport Commision
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Sheila Forsander
3000 block of 17th Street
Santa Monica 90405
Sunset Park neighborhood
Item 16.A
11/15/22
87 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Matt Hendrickson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
Joe is an attorney and Sunset Park resident who is willing to step in and help guide the city towards the closure of SMO, protect impacted residents, and insure safe operation in the meantime.
The airport is likely the most underutilized piece of property in Santa Monica. It is time to start converting empty land no longer needed for the dwindling airport into uses residents can enjoy including sports fields and courts, walking paths, and more. This can be done in affordable steps as other cities in the USA and abroad have accomplished upon closing their airports with great success.
As an official body of residents, it is important to see that the Airport Commission is made of residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of the community, and not developers and aviation interests.
Thank you!
Matt Hendrickson
2258 22nd St.
Santa Monica, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
88 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 6:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel for Airport Commissioner
EXTERNAL
Dearest Santa Monica City Council,
I hope you and your family are safe, healthy, and happy as we enter the holiday season.
I can't emphasize enough the need for the City Council to support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for airport commissioner.
He is a long-time Sunset Park resident living on the west side of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) and served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues, which is something that might be necessary as the closure of SMO in the future is likely to lead to complex issues of concern
As a representative of our neighborhood I feel confident that Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the SMO. Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
It will be a huge gift to have someone like Joe seeking to support the local community, work with the city council, and support the future of Santa Monica and its residents.
Warm Regards,
Charles
Dr. Charles L. Blum
[email protected]
1752 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-392-9795
www.drcharlesblum.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.
Ferpa Notice: Additionally, these records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and are provided to the intended recipient under an exception to the Act found in Section 99.32.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
89 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 These records must be maintained confidentially and may not be re-disclosed. They must be destroyed when your legitimate educational interest no longer exists.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
90 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Grace Gabe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 9:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: i support Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
dear council
as a long time resident and homeowner in santa monica i support Joe Pertel to fill the empty airport commission seat. we have an opportunity to use
that large area for parks and community programs. in that way we can improve the lives and health of many residents and avoid the land grab of the real estate investors to build luxury apartments and shopping malls. we need breathing space in santa monica, not more crowding and traffic. thank you
grace gabe, m.d.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
91 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Julie Ginsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 9:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I Julie Ginsberg, support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Julie Ginsberg
1128 19th St
Item 16.A
11/15/22
92 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalie Atun Greenberg <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 9:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
I am emailing to show my support for long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Natalie Greenberg
Resident, Pier Avenue in Santa Monica (Sunset Park)
Natalie A. Greenberg
917.686.9321
Item 16.A
11/15/22
93 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: JOHN VENTURA <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a member of the community, and a resident of Sunset Park area for the last 15yrs, I would like to endorse the appointment of Joe Pertel for the empty Airport Commission seat.
Thank You,
John Ventura
Item 16.A
11/15/22
94 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Jeffrey Douglas <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 7:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
I am a long-time resident of Sunset Park, Santa Monica. My son attended Will Rogers Learning Community, John Adams Middle School, and is now a Freshman at Santa Monica High School.
I have been active in the PTA, PTSA and participate actively in the parent support groups for a variety of student activities. I am a small business owner in Santa Monica and a daily user of Clover Park.
I have known Joe Pertel for over twenty years. I write to endorse him enthusiastically for a position on the Santa Monica Airport Commission. Joe is a talented, dedicated lawyer, respected within the legal community as a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
He is a long-term resident of Sunset Park and a committed community member. He has served as a director on the boards of many youth organizations. He is an excellent listener and communicator. The community trusts him.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport. Joe is dedicated to mitigating Airport health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Douglas
Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
95 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16 A/ Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern
I am endorsing Joe Pertel for the empty Airport Commission seat.
Thank you,
Your longtime resident of Santa Monica
Item 16.A
11/15/22
96 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: D F <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 11:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16A Airport commissioner
EXTERNAL
I would be pleased if some progress closing SM Airport would be made. Hopefully by supporting Joe Pertel for commissioner will help.
Thank you,
Dee Forrest
Item 16.A
11/15/22
97 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: G- LO <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 11:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Empty Airport Commission seat
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the empty Airport Commission seat. We in Sunset Park believe Joe Pertel can best represent our interests, and those of the majority of Santa Monica residents. He is qualified and understands all the issues and the history. I heartily endorse Mr. Pertel and hope you will not delay in appointing him to the seat.
Thank you for your time.
best,
Item 16.A
11/15/22
98 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: David Abramis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 10:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Iris Souza
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing mainly to endorse Joe Pertel for the empty Airport Commission seat. We need an Airport Commision that is comprised of residents who share a vision of the future and that lives up to the expectations of our community, and not just developers and aviation interests.
I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
David Abramis, Santa Monica resident and home owner
2642 33rd St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(562) 985-5360 (work #)
Item 16.A
11/15/22
99 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 10:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission -Pls Support Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Writing in support of Joe Pertel for airport commission Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Sunset Park resident
310.392.6455
Item 16.A
11/15/22
100 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission and believe he would be an invaluable and tireless public representative and conscientious leader.
I have known Joe and his family for many years and am confident he would make a fantastic airport commissioner. He has actively served on numerous local youth sports and music organization boards. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
Joe has consistently demonstrated his teamwork, leadership and vision as a community advocate. Joe is an active listener and consensus builder with the experience and disposition to assess and synthesize the many competing viewpoints necessary for the airport transition.
As a representative of the Santa Monica public, Joe will keep our interests in mind during these next critical years of the impending airport transition. Joe is conscientious and dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable land uses such as expansion of the Airport Park, and actively supporting City Council in preparation for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Bruce Malarky
Maple Street, Santa Monica
310-383-0924
Item 16.A
11/15/22
101 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: George T. Milkovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Pls appoint Mr. JOE PERTEL TO AIRPORT COMMISSION
EXTERNAL
We are writing to urge you to appoint Mr. PERTEL to the vacancy on the Airport Commission. We believe that Mr PERTEL work to insure that the property now used as an airport will be converted to be enjoyed by ALL the people .
As residents of Santa Monica for over 20 years, we believe that Mr. PERTEL will follow the Resolution passed by the City Council in 2017 and the measure LC passed by the Santa Monica voters in 2014.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
George and Carolyn MILKOVICH 310 569 2139
Item 16.A
11/15/22
102 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Janie Docter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
I strongly support my friend and long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission. We served as board members on Elemental Strings for many years which provides ensemble experience to young musicians in Santa Monica and surrounding cities. We were also very involved with youth sports programs especially when I was a board member of SM AYSO.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Janie Docter
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
103 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Cheyton Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - Joe Pertel for the airport commission
EXTERNAL
Hello!
For what it's worth, I want to support Joe Pertel for airport commissioner.
He's been a long-time resident of Sunset Park and an already active member of our community.
Considering the recent decision to close the airport, it would make sense to appoint someone in the post who wants to see that decision through, whereas the other candidates have publicly expressed their interest in keeping the airport open. I truly believe he would keep the community's interests at the top of his mind.
Sincerely,
Cheyton J.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
104 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jennifer Polhemus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment.
EXTERNAL
I support the application of Joe Pertel.
I met Joe through nonprofit arts volunteer work more than 10 years ago. He is a man of high character and strong intellect, and a hard worker – exactly the type of person we prize on City Commissions.
Jennifer L. Polhemus
40-year Santa Monica resident; Santa Monica business owner 2521 32nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405-3102
[email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
105 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 A - Airport Commision
EXTERNAL
Dear Council:
I strongly support long-time Sunset
Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport
commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport
commissioner. He is a long-time
Sunset Park resident who has served
on the boards of many local youth
organizations. He is also a public
interest attorney with decades of
experience analyzing complex legal
issues.
As a representative of our
neighborhood, Joe will keep our
community interests in mind during
these next critical years for the Santa
Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is
dedicated to mitigating SMO health
impacts, promoting sustainable uses
such as the expansion of Airport Park,
and actively supporting the
Commission and City Council in
preparing for the successful closure of
the airport and its conversion to a park
in 2029.
Sincerely,
Item 16.A
11/15/22
106 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Avenue
UNIT B (note new address!)
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-200-9306
Item 16.A
11/15/22
107 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kenny Fields <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a Sunset Park home owner since 1992.
I am writing today to express my support for Joe Pertel to occupy the vacant seat on the Airport Commission. Joe will represent the citizens of Sunset Park well as we move toward the eventual closure of the airport.
Joe will help make sure that the commission represents the will of the residents expressed so strongly with the passage of measure LC to close the airport and turn it into a multi use park which will benefit the entire City that is need of more open space and recreational facilities.
Thanks for your time.
Kenny Fields
1740 Cedar Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
108 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission and believe he would be an invaluable and tireless public representative and conscientious leader.
I have known Joe and his family for many years and am confident he would make a fantastic airport commissioner. He has actively served on numerous local youth sports and music organization boards. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
Joe has consistently demonstrated his teamwork, leadership and vision as a community advocate. Joe is an active listener and consensus builder with the experience and disposition to assess and synthesize the many competing viewpoints necessary for the airport transition.
As a representative of the Santa Monica public, Joe will keep our interests in mind during these next critical years of the impending airport transition. Joe is conscientious and dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable land uses such as expansion of the Airport Park, and actively supporting City Council in preparation for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Bruce Malarky
Maple Street, Santa Monica
310-383-0924
Item 16.A
11/15/22
109 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: George T. Milkovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Pls appoint Mr. JOE PERTEL TO AIRPORT COMMISSION
EXTERNAL
We are writing to urge you to appoint Mr. PERTEL to the vacancy on the Airport Commission. We believe that Mr PERTEL work to insure that the property now used as an airport will be converted to be enjoyed by ALL the people .
As residents of Santa Monica for over 20 years, we believe that Mr. PERTEL will follow the Resolution passed by the City Council in 2017 and the measure LC passed by the Santa Monica voters in 2014.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
George and Carolyn MILKOVICH 310 569 2139
Item 16.A
11/15/22
110 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Janie Docter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
I strongly support my friend and long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission. We served as board members on Elemental Strings for many years which provides ensemble experience to young musicians in Santa Monica and surrounding cities. We were also very involved with youth sports programs especially when I was a board member of SM AYSO.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Janie Docter
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
111 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Cheyton Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission - Joe Pertel for the airport commission
EXTERNAL
Hello!
For what it's worth, I want to support Joe Pertel for airport commissioner.
He's been a long-time resident of Sunset Park and an already active member of our community.
Considering the recent decision to close the airport, it would make sense to appoint someone in the post who wants to see that decision through, whereas the other candidates have publicly expressed their interest in keeping the airport open. I truly believe he would keep the community's interests at the top of his mind.
Sincerely,
Cheyton J.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
112 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jennifer Polhemus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment.
EXTERNAL
I support the application of Joe Pertel.
I met Joe through nonprofit arts volunteer work more than 10 years ago. He is a man of high character and strong intellect, and a hard worker – exactly the type of person we prize on City Commissions.
Jennifer L. Polhemus
40-year Santa Monica resident; Santa Monica business owner 2521 32nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405-3102
[email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
113 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 A - Airport Commision
EXTERNAL
Dear Council:
I strongly support long-time Sunset
Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport
commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport
commissioner. He is a long-time
Sunset Park resident who has served
on the boards of many local youth
organizations. He is also a public
interest attorney with decades of
experience analyzing complex legal
issues.
As a representative of our
neighborhood, Joe will keep our
community interests in mind during
these next critical years for the Santa
Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is
dedicated to mitigating SMO health
impacts, promoting sustainable uses
such as the expansion of Airport Park,
and actively supporting the
Commission and City Council in
preparing for the successful closure of
the airport and its conversion to a park
in 2029.
Sincerely,
Item 16.A
11/15/22
114 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Avenue
UNIT B (note new address!)
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-200-9306
Item 16.A
11/15/22
115 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kenny Fields <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a Sunset Park home owner since 1992.
I am writing today to express my support for Joe Pertel to occupy the vacant seat on the Airport Commission. Joe will represent the citizens of Sunset Park well as we move toward the eventual closure of the airport.
Joe will help make sure that the commission represents the will of the residents expressed so strongly with the passage of measure LC to close the airport and turn it into a multi use park which will benefit the entire City that is need of more open space and recreational facilities.
Thanks for your time.
Kenny Fields
1740 Cedar Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
116 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marion Klein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Joe Pertel for Airport Commissioner
EXTERNAL
Please support him!
I truly appreciate this.
Gratefully
Marion Klein
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
117 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jasmine Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Letter of support
EXTERNAL
I wholeheartedly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Jasmine Smith
Sunset Park
--
Jasmine Smith
(310) 804-4794
[email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
118 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Commission - Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission. He is a resident of Sunset Park. Is involved with the community and is familiar with community issues and the sentiment of local residents, and is qualified to serve. He does not have special interests, as some of the other candidates do, except for representing the needs of the neighborhood and residents.
Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
1115 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
119 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: A. Harewood <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Airport Commission Appointment: 11/15/22 SM City Council Item 16(A) Attachments: Airport Commission Application - Joe Pertel.pdf Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:
Per his attached resume, and as myself a long-time (8 as a renter, 31 as a homeowner) and current resident of Sunset Park, I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate.
Please appoint him.
Sincerely,
Adrian Harewood
2437 Pier Avenue, Sunset Park
Item 16.A
11/15/22
120 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Stephen Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel endorsement
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:
I have known Joe Pertel for about 15 years and unquestionably support him for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Stephen W. Cooper
2410 Ocean Park Boulevard
Item 16.A
11/15/22
121 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: JORDAN ELLIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and strongly endorse Joe Pertel for the empty Airport Commission seat.
Thanks,
Jordan Ellis
Bryn Mawr Ave
310-779-2771
Item 16.A
11/15/22
122 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Traci Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Council,
I am asking you to please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission. I realize that there is an empty seat on the Commission and it is important to me as a Santa Monica resident to see that the Airport Commission is made of other residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of our community, and not developers and aviation interests.
We voted citywide and passed measure LC in 2014 and communicated that we would like the airport land turned into a park, cultural, and recreational center, as residents intended way back in 1926 when the land was purchased by a park bond.
Please allow Santa Monica residents to be represented on the Airport Commission and appoint Joe Pertel to the vacant seat.
Thank you,
Traci Wallace, Ph.D.
1731 Dewey Street
310-351-7555
Item 16.A
11/15/22
123 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Jamie Dunham <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Thank you, Jamie Dunham
Pier Avenue resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 16.A
11/15/22
124 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Docter, Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Daniel Docter
1625 Dewey Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Internal Use - Confidential
Item 16.A
11/15/22
125 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Jamie Ginsburg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 10:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel for SM Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Jamie Ginsburg
Sunset Park neighborhood
Item 16.A
11/15/22
126 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joseph Hardin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission Appointment.
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council Members:
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Santa Monica Airport Commission. It will be great to have a long time Santa Monica resident and concerned parent on the commission. Joe is highly qualified and will put the health and welfare of the citizens of Santa Monica over the "big money" outside interests that have plagued our city for the 21 years I have lived here.
Thanks for your hard work,
Joe
Joseph Hardin
2349 Pier Ave
Santa Monica
CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
127 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Barbara Inatsugu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 16.A – Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Airport Commission Attachments: PERTEL - CC ITEM 16A AIRPORT COMMISSION - LTR OF SUPPORT.pdf
EXTERNAL
NOVEMBER 14, 2022
TO: Mayor, Mayor ProTem, and Members of the Santa Monica City Council [email protected]
From: Barbara Inatsugu, Sunset Park Resident
LETTER OF SUPPORT: Appointment of Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission ITEM 16.A – Appointment to one unscheduled vacancy on the Airport Commission for a term ending on 6/30/2024
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for appointment to the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge and dedication to our community, deliberative approach to decision-making, and ability to work well with others, together with his experience as an active participant in a variety of local organizations make him an ideal candidate for appointment. Furthermore, he is a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues, as described in his Airport Commission Application.
Joe is committed to insuring that the City continue to move forward on the closure of the Airport in 2028 and its conversion to park with open space and recreational facilities, as approved by a large majority of our residents in 2014. His voice as a Commissioner would be an informed and important one.
As Chair of the SMMUSD Personnel Commission, I worked regularly with Joe, who at one point was my Vice Chair, so I can attest from first hand experience to his effectiveness as a member of that Commission.
Boards and Commissions are an important part of our City’s governing structure. Santa Monica has long been committed to providing community members with a variety of opportunities to have a meaningful role in City governance. Advisory Committees are one such substantive opportunity.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
128 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 For that reason, it is important that the City Council appoint commissioners who will take their appointment seriously, regularly attend commission meetings, and read each commission agenda and all staff reports – in other words, understand and be committed to the role and responsibilities of a City Commissioner, come to all meetings of the Commission prepared and ready to deliberate and forward advice and recommendations to the City Council that are based on what is in the best interest of the City and the community (the people) of Santa Monica.
The Airport Commission, the residents of Santa Monica, as well as the City would benefit from his appointment. Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
Barbara Inatsugu (she/her/hers)
[email protected]
Item 16.A
11/15/22
129 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Hilda Borgese <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel
Attachments: Joe Pertel.docx
EXTERNAL
Item 16.A
11/15/22
130 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Christine Hardin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission Send to: [email protected]
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission. My husband and I are Sunset Park residents.
Thank you.
Christine Hardin
Joseph Hardin
2349 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
131 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Julius Reder Carlson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Supporting Joe Pertel for SMO
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident Joe Pertel for the Santa Monica Airport Commission. His legal experience, knowledge, and dedication to our community make him a wonderful candidate. Please appoint him.
Julius Carlson
Down town Santa Monica Neighborhood
Item 16.A
11/15/22
132 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Shabnam Fasa <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support of Joe Pertel for SMO
EXTERNAL
I (wholeheartedly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues.
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Shabnam Fasa
1017 4th street Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.A
11/15/22
133 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jan Simonovic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
PLEASE, PLEASE appoint Joe Pertel to the Santa Monica Airport Commission!! We need him to help make the airport an asset for all of us.
Sincerely,
Jan Simonovic
Item 16.A
11/15/22
134 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jennifer Field <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I’d like to endorse Joe Pertel for the empty Airport Commission seat.
Additionally, I would suggest the City keep front and center to the public all information pertaining to the airport closure/further use, and the general facts surrounding the process. Based on several recent conversations with residents, it seems the AOPA continues to assert there will be a backdoor deal with developers, we will be stranded in case of emergency, and, removing the “bubble" over SMO will result in LAX jets strafing over neighborhoods at 2,000 ft.
Thank you for your attention.
Jennifer Field
Item 16.A
11/15/22
135 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Steven Naftali <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Nojets Info
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica City Council Members:
My family and I reside on Marine St. and Steiner Ave. We respectfully ask the City Council to appoint Joe Pertel to the empty Airport Commission seat. Joe is an attorney and Sunset Park resident who like us lives under the irritating noise of the SMO aircraft and the pollution that they cause.
As an official body of residents, it is important to see that the Airport Commission is made of residents who share a vision of the future that lives up to the expectations of the community. Not those of the developers and aviation interests.
The City Council made a resolution to close the SMO in 2017. Our residents voted citywide and passed measure LC in 2014 to turn the land into a park, cultural, and recreational center. As the residents intended way back in 1926 when the city purchased the airport land by a park bond.
In its current form the airport is likely the most underutilized piece of property in Santa Monica. It is time to start to convert the empty land that the dwindling airport no longer needs into uses that the residents can enjoy. Like sports fields and courts, walking paths, and such. We can do this in affordable steps with great success. Like the other cities in the USA and abroad have accomplished after they closed their airports.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Naftali
[email protected]
The information transmitted is intended only for the person which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
136 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: jay puvvula <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
I strongly support long-time Sunset Park resident, Joe Pertel, for the airport commission.
Joe Pertel would make a great airport commissioner. He is a long-time Sunset Park resident who has served on the boards of many local youth organizations. I've known Joe Pertel over the years as a fellow parent from elementary school to high school. He has whole heartedly contributed to our community with his active participation and generosity. He is also a public interest attorney with decades of experience analyzing complex legal issues. I know over the years that he has done a lot of pro-bono work. He is highly intelligent and pragmatic. I have a great deal of respect for him and highly recommend him
As a representative of our neighborhood, Joe will keep our community interests in mind during these next critical years for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). Joe is dedicated to mitigating SMO health impacts, promoting sustainable uses such as the expansion of Airport Park, and actively supporting the Commission and City Council in preparing for the successful closure of the airport and its conversion to a park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Jay Puvvula MD
11th and Marine St by Marine Park.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
137 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 11/15/22 item 16-A -- Airport Commission -- Joe Pertel
EXTERNAL
November 14, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 11/15/22 agenda item 16-A – Airport Commission appointment
A majority of the FOSP Board members have voted to support the appointment of Joseph Pertel to the Airport Commission.
Joe’s dad was a Navy pilot, so he grew up around various Naval Air Stations in Florida, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Maine, where he developed an appreciation for military and civil aviation.
Since graduating from college and law school, Joe has been a long-time Sunset Park resident and has raised his family here, serving on the SMMUSD Personnel Board, and volunteering with various youth sports organizations. This has made him aware of the need for more open space, parks, and recreational facilities in our city.
With his legal training and 27 years of experience as an attorney, he understands FAA regulations, the 2017 Consent Decree, and the history of litigation involving the city and Santa Monica Airport.
He is also aware of the safety and pollution impacts of past and current Airport operations on local residents.
Joe views the conversion of Santa Monica Airport to a great park, after the airport closes at the end of 2028, as a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity." We believe that he will do an excellent job of analyzing options and representing community concerns as the planning process goes forward.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
138 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 He has a demonstrated commitment to the improvement of the quality of life for Santa Monica residents, particularly the children of Santa Monica, and we expect that commitment to continue to play itself out in his service on the Santa Monica Airport Commission.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
139 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 8:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Joe Pertel's pending Commission appointment
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica Council members.
I support the appointment of Joe Pertel to the Santa Monica Airport Commission.
As a native to Santa Monica that was born and raised under the airport’s flight path, and still to this day, live within ‘earshot’, and an active member of the community, I feel I should add my voice in support of Joe Pertel.
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Santa Monica Airport Commission.
Stay safe, Stay well,
James M. Wilson, AIA
Item 16.A
11/15/22
140 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: NO!!! Joe Pertel. airport commission
From: lori brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:35 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>
Subject: NO!!! Joe Pertel. airport commission
EXTERNAL
Dear council members
Many residents especially in Sunset Park have been the recipient of vitriol and online bullying from Joe Pertel. !!!!!
I question his motives which is further exacerbated by his associations.
Please note: The Sunset Park Board was not unanimous for Mr. Pertel.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration on the appointment.
Lori Brown
Sunset park resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
141 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 8:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oppose Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 at 11:31:02 PM PST
Subject: Oppose Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
Dear City Council -
I am writing to oppose the appointment of Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
First, as the recipient of much ire from Joe Pertel on social media, I can confirm he is a social media bully. This past election season he was involved in the perpetuation of the falsehood that anyone who opposes unlimited growth or the Dem Club endorsements is a right-wing Republican Trumper. This is mean, dangerous, divisive, and anti-democratic, and conduct not befitting a commissioner.
Second, in 2021 Chris Harding formed a group called SMIG (Santa Monicans for Integrity in Government) and Joe did some of their legal work. The group members are Judy Abdo, Jason Islas, Chris Harding, Tom Larmore, Debbie Mulvaney, and Joe Pertel. SMIG initially formed to block Oscar de la Torre from voting on district elections and to retain the at-large elections for more development. See here: https://smdp.com/2021/02/03/your-column-here-7/ Then SMIG threatened to shut down the Santa Monica High School Alumni Association for advocating to preserve the History Building. Joe filed a complaint on behalf of SMIG regarding paperwork technicalities and making the false accusation that the alumni association was engaged in "propaganda" and should have its nonprofit status revoked simply for advocating to save the flagship building of the Samohi campus. The History Building was a cultural resource of Santa Monica and would have been landmarked if those rules applied to school land. Joe Pertel and Chris Harding went against the pleas of 5 neighborhood organizations, the Samohi Alumni Association, the Santa Monica Conservancy, and a petition of 6000 people to save it, and instead behaved like bullies to push through the demolition while Chris Harding's wife, Laurie Lieberman, was pushing the demolition on the school board. They supported demolition and construction as "progress." This will be looked back on as one of the lowest points in our city's history.
Prior to that, Joe Pertel teamed up with Joel Koury and asked a court not to pay claimants on their lawful awards in the SMMUSD pupil fee lawsuit settlement.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
142 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Finally, I am suspicious of the motives of anyone working with the biggest land use lawyer in town to do what is in the best interests of residents with respect to the airport land, when there is no track record to support that, but rather the opposite.
It would be a mistake to believe he is an advocate for residents or the conversion of the airport to a park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
143 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Oppose Joe Pertel for Airport Commission - Documentation of Joe's Divisive Attacks Attachments: koury pertel objection body.pdf; 2021-06-01 Letter from Joe Pertel re Samohi Alumni Association.pdf
EXTERNAL
City Council -
As further support for my objection, I am attaching the following documents:
1. Objection filed by Joe Pertel and Joel Koury to the SMMUSD pupil fee lawsuit settlement filed February 10, 2020. This appears motivated by their ongoing feud with Kevin Shenkman. However, Joe was willing to hurt families in order to defeat Shenkman. Not only did he object to the payment of legal fees, but he objected to the payment of lawful claims to parents and students. The claims were for reimbursement of amounts paid out of pocket that the school district was required by law to pay for. It is not clear that the people who signed Joe's request to join an objection were aware that they were objecting to payment of claims in addition to legal fees. Joe and Joel's objection further divided the school community by making parents and students who filed claims the enemies of the school district instead of focusing on the unlawful behavior of the district. This behavior emboldens the district to do less and challenge more, which puts our kids at risk, and the most recent example is a $45 million jury verdict against SMMUSD for the abuse of two special needs students.
2. Link to statement by SMIG relating to district elections February 3, 2021 (named signatories: Judy Abdo, Jason Islas, Chris Harding, Tom Larmore, Debbie Mulvaney, and Joe Pertel). This is further work by Joe Pertel with Chris Harding and other pro-development people to stop district elections and keep massive development moving forward. It is another example of ad hominem attacks and the attempt to portray opponents as unsavory people instead of addressing substantive issues. In this instance, there is an effort to liken those wanting district elections (a format cited as more democratic by many Democratic Party organizations) as Trump supporters. SMIG also filed an amicus brief in the case. https://smdp.com/2021/02/03/your-column-here-7/
3. Complaint filed June 1, 2021 by Joe Pertel on behalf of SMIG threatened to shut down the Santa Monica High School Alumni Association for advocating to preserve the History Building. This was a bullying tactic intended to silence Phil Brock and the Samohi Alumni Association from objecting to the demolition of the History Building. This was harmful to the continued and proper work of the Alumni Association to preserve and protect the iconic buildings of Samohi and the history of Santa Monica. These kinds of efforts result in emotional distress and negatively financially impact those who must defend against these bullying legal attacks. There is no doubt this kind of behavior resulted in a chilling of advocacy and civic discourse in Santa Monica, and the loss of an iconic cultural resource, for the benefit of development interests supported by Chris Harding.
Please do not give Joe Pertel a platform to bully fellow residents and further Chris Harding's development agenda for the airport land.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nikki Kolhoff
Item 16.A
11/15/22
144 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 Sunset Park Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: Councilmtgitems <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 08:56:57 AM PST
Subject: Fw: Oppose Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Nikki Kolhoff <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 at 11:31:02 PM PST
Subject: Oppose Joe Pertel for Airport Commission
Dear City Council -
I am writing to oppose the appointment of Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
First, as the recipient of much ire from Joe Pertel on social media, I can confirm he is a social media bully. This past election season he was involved in the perpetuation of the falsehood that anyone who opposes unlimited growth or the Dem Club endorsements is a right-wing Republican Trumper. This is mean, dangerous, divisive, and anti-democratic, and conduct not befitting a commissioner.
Second, in 2021 Chris Harding formed a group called SMIG (Santa Monicans for Integrity in Government) and Joe did some of their legal work. The group members are Judy Abdo, Jason Islas, Chris Harding, Tom Larmore, Debbie Mulvaney, and Joe Pertel. SMIG initially formed to block Oscar de la Torre from voting on district elections and to retain the at-large elections for more development. See here: https://smdp.com/2021/02/03/your-column-here-7/ Then SMIG threatened to shut down the Santa Monica High School Alumni Association for advocating to preserve the History Building. Joe filed a complaint on behalf of SMIG regarding paperwork technicalities and making the false accusation that the alumni association was engaged in "propaganda" and should have its nonprofit status revoked simply for advocating to save the flagship building of the Samohi campus. The History Building was a cultural resource of Santa Monica and would have been landmarked if those rules applied to school land. Joe Pertel and Chris Harding went against the pleas of 5 neighborhood organizations, the Samohi Alumni Association, the Santa Monica Conservancy, and a petition of 6000 people to save it, and instead behaved like bullies to push through the demolition while Chris Harding's wife, Laurie Lieberman, was pushing the demolition on the school board. They supported demolition and construction as "progress." This will be looked back on as one of the lowest points in our city's history.
Prior to that, Joe Pertel teamed up with Joel Koury and asked a court not to pay claimants on their lawful awards in the SMMUSD pupil fee lawsuit settlement.
Finally, I am suspicious of the motives of anyone working with the biggest land use lawyer in town to do what is in the best interests of residents with respect to the airport land, when there is no track record to support that, but rather the opposite.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
145 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 It would be a mistake to believe he is an advocate for residents or the conversion of the airport to a park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.A
11/15/22
146 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Nicola Goode <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16(A) - Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Attn. Santa Monica City Council:
I'm writing in support of longtime Sunset Park, Santa Monica resident Joe Pertel as a terrific choice for the Airport Commission. He has been a consistently active member of our community including working on the boards of various youth organizations. As a dedicated, experienced public interest attorney he brings skills of complex legal analysis to the table as well. The coming years will be critical ones regarding changes to the use and direction of Santa Monica’s 'jewel in the crown’ parcel, SMO. I believe Joe would keep our best interests in mind and remain dedicated to mitigating health impacts, promoting sustainable uses while working as a balanced team player within the Commission and with the City Council. As a 20 year Sunset Park resident and tenant of an art studio space at the SMO 18th Street Art Studio campus, I look forward to the successful closure of SMO, its transition to multiple creative community based uses and the expansion of Airport Park in 2029.
Sincerely,
Nicola Goode
Sunset Avenue, SM 90405
Item 16.A
11/15/22
147 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Law Office
Of
Joseph A. Pertel
2801 Ocean Park Boulevard, # 276
Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (310) 503-5791
E-Mail: [email protected]
June 1, 2021
Dr. Ben Drati, Superintendent
Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District
1651 16th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
Dr. Antonio Shelton, Principal
Santa Monica High School
601 Pico Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90405
RE: Santa Monica High School (“Samohi”) Alumni Association Suspension of Nonprofit Status and Partisan Advocacy
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Dear Dr. Drati and Dr. Shelton,
I am writing on behalf of Santa Monicans for Integrity in Government (“SMIG”), which includes Samohi graduates, parents of Samohi students and graduates, and Samohi Alumni Association (“SAA”) members, to express our concerns regarding the reported suspension of SAA’s nonprofit status by the California Attorney General’s Office and the California Secretary of State, its lack of good standing with the California Franchise Board, as well as SAA’s partisan political activities that we believe undermine the core mission of this important community organization.
Since it is our understanding that the school district provides office space, furniture, telephone, internet and other services to SAA at no cost, we are asking the school district to conduct a formal inquiry into SAA’s nonprofit status, finances and activities to insure that it complies with California’s nonprofit legal requirements, as Item 16.A
11/15/22
148 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 2 well as fulfilling its mission to provide support to Samohi alumni and current students without partisan politics.
A. Background - Samohi Alumni Association
The Santa Monica High School (“Samohi”) Alumni Association was registered as a nonprofit entity with the California Secretary of State on October 26, 1953, entity number C0279539. (Exhibit A.) The current iteration of SAA was registered as a nonprofit public benefit corporation with the Secretary of State on January 7, 1991, entity number C1679526. (Id.)
The SAA maintains rent-free office space with furniture, telephone and internet service on the campus of Santa Monica High School.1 (Exhibit B, p. 3.) The SAA lists its physical address as Santa Monica High School (Samohi) located at 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405 with a Samohi telephone number of 310 395-3204, extension 71564. (Id.). The SAA maintains social media accounts on Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram and Twitter.
In its most recent newsletter, SAA provided the following list of current board members: Phil Brock, ’71, President; Jeff Condon, ’79, Vice President; Michael Flinkman, ’77, Treasurer; Crystal Reed, ’89, Secretary; Stephanie Hoff Brice ’70; Sharon Coatam Armstrong, ’71; Joe Deering, Jr., ’64; Naila Dada Elfarra, ’83; Becky Darden Mejia, ’58; Karl Schober, ’62; Lawson Desrochers, ’86; and Victoria Coulson, ’86.2 (Exhibit B, p. 3.)
Phil Brock has served as President of SAA since 2016. He served as Vice President from 2013-2015.
B. Current Nonprofit Status
1. California Secretary of State
The Secretary of State requires tax-exempt organizations, including nonprofit public benefit corporations, to file a “Statement of Information” every other year after incorporation. If an entity fails to file a Statement of Information, the Secretary 1 See http://www.samohialumni.org/
2 See https://www.facebook.com/samohialumni
Item 16.A
11/15/22
149 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 3 of State informs the California Franchise Tax Board, which is authorized to assess financial penalties. (Attorney General’s Guide for Charities, “AG Guide” (2021) at pp. 43-44.) If the Secretary of State suspends a corporation for failure to file a Statement of Information, its status can only be resolved and returned to active status by the Franchise Tax Board. A corporation is not allowed to conduct business in California while suspended.
According to the Secretary of State’s website, SAA filed its most recent Statement of Information on February 16, 2015, more than six years ago.3 (Exhibit C.) According to its website, the California Secretary of State has “suspended” the Samohi Alumni Association. (Id.)
2. California Attorney General’s Office
The Attorney General’s Office (“AG’s Office”) regulates charities and other nonprofit organizations. As part of this process, the AG’s Office maintains a “Registry of Charitable Trusts” (“the Registry”) on its website.
Charitable organizations must register with the AG’s Office within 30 days of receiving a cash donation, property donation, or other asset with financial value received for a charitable purpose. (AG’s Guide, supra, at p. 44.) Charitable organizations are required to file an “Annual Registration Renewal Form (“Form RRF-1”), as well as copies of their annual IRS Form 990. Failure to file the annual Form RRF-1 may result in the loss of the organization’s tax-exempt status.
The SAA registered with the AG’s Office on December 31, 2006, Registry number 080829. (Exhibit D.) According to the AG’s Office’s official website, SAA filed its last Form RRF-1 on December 4, 2012, more than eight years ago. (Id.) The AG’s website states that Samohi Alumni Association’s Registry status is “Suspended.” (Id.) On October 5, 2020, the AG’s Office mailed SAA a “Delinquent Notice.” (Exhibit E.) In this Notice, the AG’s Office advised SAA that its “registration status 3https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=&SearchType=NUMBE R&SearchCriteria=C1679526&SearchSubType=Exact
Item 16.A
11/15/22
150 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 4 has been delinquent for more than 10 years.”4 (Id., emphasis added.) The Notice further advised the Alumni Association that “[y]ou are required to file the Form RRF-1 renewal fees and the IRS Form 990 . . . for the missing years within 30 days or your organization’s account will be suspended and then revoked.” (Id.) The Delinquency Notice further warned SAA that “[h]aving a delinquent or suspended status prevents your organization from any fundraising.” (Id.) On February 1, 2021, the AG’s Office formally suspended the Samohi Alumni Association. (Exhibit D.) According to its website, a charitable organization that is not in good standing with the Registry may not operate or solicit donations in California.5
3. Franchise Tax Board
Most tax-exempt organizations are required to file an annual information return with the State of California Franchise Tax Board (FTB”). Most charitable organizations file FTB Form 199 or Form 199N.
According to its website, SAA is “Suspended” and “Not Exempt.” (Exhibit G, p. 1, emphasis added; See also, Franchise Tax Board, Entity Status Letter, dated May 29, 2021 [“The [Samohi Alumni Association] is not in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board.”] (Id., p. 2, emphasis in original.)
4 As reflected in minutes of its board meetings, SAA has been aware of its failure to comply with California’s nonprofit laws since at least 2018, See, e.g., “State non-profit status paperwork needs to be submitted ASAP! Bret [Hammond] will work with Phil [Brock]. (Minutes 7/11/18, p.1 [underline added]); “Charitable status: Crystal [Reed] will work with Phil [Brock] to update this before the end of the year.” (Minutes 12/12/18, p. 1 [underline added]) (Exhibit F.) As of today’s date, SAA has not posted minutes of its board meetings on its website since December 11, 2019. http://www.samohialumni.org/board-meetings-agendas-- minutes.html 5 See California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 999.9.4, which states, “A person or entity subject to the registration requirements of Government Code section 12580 et seq., must be registered and in good standing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts to operate or solicit for charitable purposes. A registration that is delinquent, suspended or revoked is not in good standing and is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required including, but not limited to solicitation for charitable purposes.” (emphasis added.) Item 16.A
11/15/22
151 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 5 C. Compliance with State Nonprofit Laws and Policy Issues By this letter, we are asking SMMUSD to conduct a formal inquiry into SAA’s nonprofit status, financial condition, and related policy issues:
1. Samohi Alumni Association
a. The California Secretary of State’s website states that SAA is suspended. (Exhibit C.) Is this correct and, if so, how long has SAA been suspended? If suspended, is SAA prohibited from conducting business in the State of California? If suspended and prohibited from conducting business, how long has SAA been conducting business unlawfully? Was the SAA board of directors aware of this? If so, for how long? If suspended, did SAA inform SMMUSD of this situation? If not, why not? Why did it continue to operate under these circumstances? What steps, if any, have been taken by SAA leadership, including its longtime President, Phil Brock, to bring SAA into compliance with the Secretary of State’s rules and regulations? b. The California Attorney General’s Office’s website states that SAA is suspended. (Exhibit D.) Is this correct and, if so, how long has SAA been suspended? If suspended, has SAA been prohibited from operating and/or soliciting donations? If so, when did this happen and why does SAA continue to solicit donations on its official website in violation of state law?6 Was the SAA board of directors aware of this? If so, for how long? If suspended and prohibited from operating and/or soliciting donations, did SAA inform SMMUSD of this situation? If not, why not? What are the legal consequences, if any, for soliciting and receiving donations while suspended? Do donors need to be notified? Do donations need to be returned?
c. The State of California Franchise Tax Board’s website states that SAA is “suspended,” “not exempt,” and “not in good standing.” (Exhibit G, pp. 1-2, 6 On its website, SAA continues to solicit donations from Samohi alumni and the local community, stating that “[a]ll of your donations are fully tax deductible.” (Exhibit H.) See also http://www.samohialumni.org/donate.html This statement is false and misleading to the extent that SAA has been suspended by the AG’s Office and the Secretary of State and prohibited from conducting business operations and/or soliciting donations.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
152 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 6 emphasis in original.) Is this correct and, if so, how long has SAA been suspended, not exempt, and not been in good standing? If suspended, not exempt, and not in good standing, is SAA prohibited from conducting business in the State of California? If suspended and prohibited from conducting business, how long has SAA been conducting business unlawfully? Was the SAA board of directors aware of this? If so, for how long? If not in good standing with the FTB, did SAA inform SMMUSD of this situation? If not, why not? Why did it continue to operate under these circumstances? What steps, if any, have been taken by SAA leadership, including its President, Phil Brock, to bring SAA into compliance with the Franchise Tax Board’s rules and regulations?
d. If suspended and/or not in good standing with the Attorney General’s Office, the Secretary of State, and the Franchise Tax Board, has SAA lost its taxexempt status? If SAA has lost is tax-exempt status, when did this happen? Was the SAA board of directors aware of this? If so, for how long? If suspended and/or not in good standing, did SAA inform SMMUSD of this situation? If not, why not? Why did it continue to operate under these circumstances? What steps, if any, have been taken to bring SAA into compliance with the rules and regulations of these California agencies?
2. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
a. Does SMMUSD provide office space, including furniture, telephone and internet services, to SAA? Does SMMUSD provide the use other district facilities to SAA, e.g., space to conduct meetings, reunions or alumni gatherings? If so, does SMMUSD have a lease agreement and/or memorandum of understanding with SAA? If not, why not?
b. Does SMMUSD charge SAA rent for the use of SMMUSD office space, furniture, telephone and internet services? If so, how much? If not, is this based on SAA’s representations and agreement that SAA is a nonprofit tax-exempt public benefit corporation in good standing with all necessary State of California entities, including the AG’s Office, the Secretary of State, and the Franchise Tax Board? Item 16.A
11/15/22
153 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 7 c. If SAA is not allowed to conduct business in California, not allowed to solicit donations, and/or has lost its nonprofit status, is SMMUSD legally permitted to provide office space and other free resources to SAA? d. What is the fair market value of the office space, furniture, telephone and internet services provided to SAA by SMMUSD? If SAA was not allowed to conduct business in California, not allowed to solicit (or receive) donations, and/or lost its nonprofit status, is SAA required to reimburse SMMUSD for the fair market value of the office space, furniture, telephone and internet services provided by SMMUSD to SAA during the period of suspension?
e. Should SMMUSD include a provision in any lease agreement or memorandum of understanding with SAA for office space and/or the use of other Samohi resources and facilities requiring proof of on-going compliance with state and federal nonprofit rules and regulations? Should SMMUSD require SAA to provide proof of an outside financial audit on a periodic basis as a condition for using Samohi facilities? If so, how often?
D. SAA’s Political Activities and Partisan Advocacy
Over the past year, we have become concerned by SAA’s participation in overt political activities related to our local elections, including the Santa Monica City Council and SMMUSD Board of Education elections in November, 2020 and, most recently, its support for a recall campaign against members of the SMMUSD school board. As set forth below, SAA has run political advertisements for local candidates, written favorably about alumni political candidates in its newsletter and social media platforms, and used its alumni mailing list for political purposes. In addition, SAA has taken a partisan political position concerning Samohi’s approved Phase III Campus Plan, arguing for the preservation of the History Building, including the use of incorrect and/or misleading information. For these reasons, we Item 16.A
11/15/22
154 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 8 urge SMMUSD to conduct an independent inquiry concerning these political activities in light of SAA’s use of Samohi facilities and resources.7
1. SAA’s Improper Political Activities
The SAA’s Articles of Incorporation contain the following restrictions on political activities:
Four (c): “No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in a political campaign (including the publishing or distribution of statements) on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.” (Exhibit I, p. 2.) In SAA’s Fall 2020 edition of the Santa Monica High School Alumni Association Viking News, SAA President Phil Brock wrote an article which, in relevant part, supported his candidacy for the Santa Monica City Council, the candidacies of his “Slate of Eight” running mate for City Council, Oscar de la Torre, and running mate Esther Hickman for SMMUSD school board, as well as Kristin McCowan, who was running unopposed for a two-year term on City Council:
“Finally, Santa Monica’s Municipal Elections coincide with our national elections on November 3rd. As you can tell from the paid advertisements in this issue, three outstanding Vikings seek city council nods, and another Viking is running for a seat on the school board. There are five City Council seats and three board of education seats available. I wish the best of luck to all of us trying to bring positive changes to our city’s elected officers.” (Exhibit J, Viking News, Fall 2020, p. 2.)
These comments violate the express terms of SAA’s Articles of Incorporation prohibiting participation or intervention in any political campaign “on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for political office.” (Exhibit I, p. 2.) In addition, we are concerned that these political activities appear to violate the terms of their nonprofit tax-exempt status
7 We are not, of course, opposed to members of SAA expressing political views in their individual capacities. We are concerned, however, when SAA members express and/or promote partisan political views in their official capacities as SAA board members and/or use SAA resources, including SAA newsletters and email lists, to promote their personal political views and/or coordinate with other partisan political organizations and/or individuals to promote their personal political views.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
155 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 9 In addition, the Viking News ran four full-page color political advertisements for Phil Brock, Oscar de la Torre, and Kristin McCowan for City Council and Esther Hickman for School Board. (Exhibit J, at pp. 3, 4, 14, and 15.) The placement of these political advertisements violate the terms of SAA’s Article of Incorporation prohibiting the “. . . publishing or distribution of statements[ ] on behalf of . . . any candidate for political office.” (Exhibit I, page 2.)
2. SAA’s Partisan “Propaganda”
Over the past year, SAA, particularly its President Phil Brock, acting in his official capacity as President of SAA, has become directly involved in a campaign opposing Phase III of the approved Samohi Campus Plan and supporting the preservation of the History Building, which is slated for demolition as part of the District’s on-going efforts to modernize its public school facilities. SAA President Brock’s efforts, closely coordinated with the unsuccessful campaign of school board candidate Esther Hickman, violate SAA’s Articles of Incorporation prohibiting the “carrying on of propaganda”8 and raise issues concerning its on-going relationship with SMMUSD and its use of Samohi resources.
In a recent SAA newsletter, President Phil Brock published the following comments concerning the History Building:
“SAVE the HISTORY Building!
“The voters of Santa Monica passed the most massive school bond measure in our district’s history. The superintendent and the majority of the School Board have now slated our historic History Building for demolition . . . . “Here are the reasons the school district gives to rationalize the demolition and replacement of this revered building. The rooms aren’t square (evidently, our education suffers in rectangular rooms!), the walls are so thick that internet services is spotty (I think Broadband is the answer). 8 SAA’s Articles of Incorporation do not define “carrying on propaganda,” which is contained in a section covering restrictions on political activities by the organization. Propaganda is defined as “the spreading of ideas, information or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause or a person” or “ideas, facts or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2021.
Item 16.A
11/15/22
156 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 10 Additionally, the district notes that students do not like to walk up the hill (are more PE classes the answer?), and the ramps that satisfy ADA requirements are unsightly (elevators anyone)?
. . . .
“Your Board of Directors believe that the District Administration and School Board are making a mistake. Samohi’s population continues to decrease.
Aside from permit students, the student population is just over 2,400 for our four-year school. My graduating class in 1971 numbered 901, with a total count of approximately 3,100 Vikings in a three-year school. As enrollment continues to decline and the number of families in Santa Monica decreases, there can be no justification for this historic building’s demolition. The SAA will be happy to forward your email and snail-mail letters to the school board. Email your message to [email protected] or mail your letter of protest to Samohi Alumni Association, 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica CA 90405.
. . . . (Exhibit J, Viking News, p. 2, emphasis added.) Mr. Brock’s comments, purportedly endorsed by SAA’s “Board of Directors,” do not accurately reflect the reasons set forth by the parents, students, teachers, staff, architects, and the School Board who helped develop the plans for Phase III of the Samohi Campus Plan and/or made the decision to remove the History Building as part of this project. Mr. Brock does not make any effort to provide a balanced discussion of the merits of competing viewpoints and there is no evidence that Mr.
Brock or the SAA Board of Directors offered to provide space in the Viking News for the school district (or others) to provide the other side of the discussion.
In addition to these comments, SAA posted and promoted similar statements on its Facebook account. For example, on or about October 27, 2020, the “Samohi Alumni Association” restated the following (inaccurate) reasons it claimed formed the basis for the decision to demolish the History Building:
“Samohi Alumni Association
“The SMMUSD wants to demolish these historic buildings and rebuild the campus. They have listed three reasons for the campus make over. 1. High school kids cannot learn in a rectangular classroom. 2. The walls are too thick for the Internet to penetrate them. 3. Kids don’t like to walk up the stairs or hill.
. . . .
Item 16.A
11/15/22
157 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 11 “There is no reason to destroy these buildings. They are all structurally sound and have survived two major earthquakes over the past ½ century with no damage. There is pride in those solid buildings on campus. Preserve them. Oh, one more thing. The school district got a large measure approved but has not put the bonds on sale. A remodel, if needed, would save Santa Monica taxpayers thousands of dollars each for the next thirty years.” (Exhibit K.)
In addition to this and several similar posts by SAA on its Facebook page, SAA permitted former school board candidate Esther Hickman to post dozens of comments containing similar misinformation, as well as a petition that she posted nearly a dozen times on this single SAA Facebook group, without any apparent oversight or intervention by SAA’s Facebook group administrator(s). 9 In addition, SAA sent “Action Alert” emails to thousands of Samohi alumni containing, in relevant part, the following proposed letter for them to send to the District opposing the Campus Plan:
“….
“I am asking the board to halt to Samohi Phase 3 and all further construction plans until historic inventories have been completed at all campuses by a historic resources expert. The historic resources policy must include local criteria 1-6, and the requirement that a historic resources expert perform assessment adaptive reuse.
“The remaining bond funds must be spent on the adaptive reuse of the historic Samohi buildings. All SMMUSD resources should be focused on getting students, teachers, and staff back to school safely instead of fasttracking new development and using public funds to demolish history resources.
“Save the History Building. Go Vikings!”
(Exhibit L, emphasis added.)
This SAA email was distributed within hours of similar messages which were posted extensively on local social media by former school board candidate Esther Hickman 9 https://www.facebook.com/samohialumni
Item 16.A
11/15/22
158 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 12 and a close associate, Nikki Kolhoff. (Exhibit M.) Once again, no effort was made on behalf of SAA to provide a balanced discussion of the issues considered by the proponents of the Samohi Campus Plan and/or the adoption of a historical resources policy by the School Board.
Finally, on May 19, 2021, the SAA Facebook page posted an article entitled “Goodbye Samohi” by Charles Andrews,10 a vocal proponent of the political recall campaign targeting members of the school board, urging Samohi alumni to read the article and “take action.” (Exhibit N.) In this article, Mr. Andrews repeated (false) accusations promulgated by the recall movement and specifically instructed his readers to take political action against the school board:
. . . .
“ Who’s doing this? Your School District (SMMUSD), its staff and your elected seven-member School Board. Half of whom now face the threat of recall, over this and a long list of other parent and community grievances, including mismanagement of huge amounts of funds, lack of transparency, communication and access, and disrespecting, marginalizing, bullying and retaliating against parents who speak out and disagree. “CAN WE STOP IT?
“Many have been trying, since the District’s master construction plan and its History Building demolition became much more widely known last year. Can we avoid a messy and expensive recall, and keep those hard-working public servants on their board? Possibly, both.
“Go to the School Board site to see how to call in and raise your voices at the Board meeting Thursday night. You have to put in early to get a turn, prior to the 5:30 public start. But to have any effect with a mostly intransigent Board, the numbers would have to be impressive. Hundreds. When news spread of the destructive master plan last fall, a group put up an online petition to save the History Building and got 6,000 signatures in a matter of days. Pooh. Your School Board and SMMUSD have ignored it.
“How many of you are willing to make the effort to save yet another iconic piece of Santa Monica history? Because of the seemingly irrational fervor to 10 “Goodbye Samohi,” Charles Andrews, Santa Monica Daily Press, May 18, 2021 https://www.smdp.com/goodbyesamohi/205027?fbclid=IwAR3y8XkabAvzEUEp7kIrswuIWdHFMTZYdWqE6b4uFRc 60fzQ7XSMnQ8a0ko
Item 16.A
11/15/22
159 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 13 build and overdevelop, both by the City and SMMUSD, there are not many of those touchstones left. Sadly, Santa Monicans are usually not willing to make that effort. But that is what it takes. Will you, this time? (A flood of emails would also be good — ALSO — to: [email protected], which reaches every Board member.)
. . . .
‘But here, indeed, is a rare chance for a local politico to claim that banner.
We’re not asking much. It can be a win-win resolution. You will forever be known as the School Board Member Who Saved the History Building. And the big bonus could be… that your papers for recall might wind up in the trash instead of the county clerk’s desk.”
(Exhibit O.)
F. Issues Concerning SAA’s Political Activities and Partisan Propaganda a. Did SAA violate its Articles of Incorporation by engaging in political activities by publishing SAA President Phil Brock’s partisan comments in its official Viking News concerning three City Council candidates and one School Board candidate during the last election cycle? Did SAA violate any state or federal regulation or rule concerning partisan political activities by this nonprofit organization?
b. Did SAA violate its Articles of Incorporation by promoting biased, misleading, and/or factually incorrect information, i.e., “carrying on propaganda,” concerning Phase III of the Samohi Campus Plan and the demolition of the History Building? Did SAA violate any state or federal regulation or rule concerning partisan political activities of this nonprofit organization? c. Did SAA violate its Articles of Incorporation by sending, in coordination with well-known partisan political activists, “urgent action” messages to thousands of Samohi alumni on its official SAA email list concerning Phase III of the Samohi Campus Plan and removal of the History Building ? Did SAA violate any state or federal regulation or rule concerning the political activities of this nonprofit organization?
d. Did SAA violate its Articles of Incorporation by posting an article by vocal recall activist Charles Andrews on its official Facebook page, advising its alumni members to “read it” and “take action”? Did SAA violate any state or federal Item 16.A
11/15/22
160 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 14 regulation or rule concerning the political activities of this nonprofit tax-exempt organization by posting this article by a leading proponent of the recall campaign and advising its members take the political action set forth in the article? e. Notwithstanding its Articles of Incorporation, as a matter of public policy, should SAA, which receives office space, furniture, telephone and internet services at no costs on the grounds of our public high school, Samohi, engage in partisan political activities and/or partisan advocacy with respect to school-related issues, irrespective of viewpoint?
f. Should SMMUSD include a provision in any lease agreement or memorandum of understanding with SAA for office space and/or the use of other Samohi resources and facilities prohibiting the organization from engaging in the promotion of partisan political activities and/or partisan activities, irrespective of viewpoint?
We urge SMMUSD to commence an independent inquiry of the Samohi Alumni Association at your earliest convenience. Given SAA’s suspension by the Attorney General’s Office and the Secretary of State, its lack of good standing with the Franchise Tax Board, and its ongoing partisan political activities, this is an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions and/or need additional information or documentation concerning these issues.
Very truly yours,
// Joseph A. Pertel //
Joseph A. Pertel
Attorney for SMIG
Santa Monicans for Integrity in Government
Item 16.A
11/15/22
161 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 15 CC: Samohi Alumni Association
Office of Attorney General, Department of Justice, State of California, Registry of Charitable Trusts
Office of the City Attorney, City of Santa Monica,
Consumer Protection Division
Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District, Board of Education Attachments: 15 Exhibits
Item 16.A
11/15/22
162 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
163 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
164 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
165 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
166 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
167 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) Item 16.A
11/15/22
168 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Randall Klarin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16A/Airport Commission
EXTERNAL
Please appoint Joe Pertel to the Airport Commission.
Randall Klarin
RW Klarin
Item 16.A
11/15/22
169 of 169 Item 16.A
11/15/22
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written Comment (5387 : 16.A. Appointment: Airport Commission (5 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Negrete, Parra, and Brock that the City Manager develop and return to City Council with recommendations for a Poet Laureate program for the City of Santa Monica. The program and recommendations shall be developed in collaboration with the Library Board and Arts Commission.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.B
Packet Pg. 697
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 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: Designation of a voting delegate for the National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting being held on Saturday, November 19 in Kansas City, MO Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.C
Packet Pg. 698
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 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 Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comment
16.D
Packet Pg. 699
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 8:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide. Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak Item 16.D
11/15/22
1 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosition=&ID=5477& CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
2 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 8:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We wholeheartedly oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022.
Stephanie Barbanell and Jerry Bass
Santa Monica Residents since 1986
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, David White <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
Item 16.D
11/15/22
3 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide.
Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 16.D
11/15/22
4 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 5 Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosi tion=&ID=5477&CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
5 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: barbanell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We wholeheartedly oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022.
Stephanie Barbanell and Jerry Bass
Santa Monica Residents since 1986
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, David White <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
6 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 7 Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide.
Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the Item 16.D
11/15/22
7 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 8 organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosi tion=&ID=5477&CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
8 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 9 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 7:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide. Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement Item 16.D
11/15/22
9 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 10 recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPosition=&ID=5477& CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
10 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 16.D
11/15/22
11 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Daniel Galamba; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan
Subject: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose this item 16-D.
This proposal has a chilling effect on neighborhood organizations by requiring them to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
Neighborhood organizations have a legitimate interest in endorsing or opposing measures that affect their residents and should not be threatened with reprisals by the City for doing their duty. This is just an attempt to intimidate neighborhood organizations into silence and violates their right to free speech and political expression. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.D
11/15/22
12 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Agenda item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Strongly oppose. Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office, provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity.
We don't need more bullying threats to democracy, such as in City Council Item 16-D.
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 16.D
11/15/22
13 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Cc: Heidi Jo Corey; Neighbor Karen ⛅Percy Neighborhood Watch Buddy; Neighbor 🏡 Carol Dickinson Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
ᨸᨹᨺᨻᨼᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ 310-656-0000
᠀᠁᠂ [email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
14 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marilyn Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 6:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
I tried by hitting reply all, but it wouldn’t go through. I will try to copy the council members another way. Again.
I also compared this to all of the endorsements for candidates we have been receiving, telling them I want to choose The advice of whomever I choose, not just those who have the money for mail out ads. If they tell our neighborhood leaders
They cannot promote someone, isn’t that violating their freedom of speech? Thank you for your work.
Marilyn Alexander
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Marilyn Alexander <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 I am opposed to the proposal on the Agenda Item 16- D. It is a violation of freedom of speech. I get to decide whose advice I want to take or reject.
All of the mailers that piled up in my mailbox for weeks were the same thing, advising or pleading for my vote. If Item 16-D is passed then mailers must be forbidden also.
Thank you for voting this one down.
Marilyn Alexander
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2022, at 7:14 AM, Tricia Crane <[email protected]> wrote:
To
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D Item 16.D
11/15/22
15 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 The Board of Northeast Neighbors opposes Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. Our website sets forth our mission statement:
We are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.
Federal law permits non-profit social welfare organizations with a 501(c)(4) status to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within our right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council as we have in this election.
Our members contribute to our nonprofit because they value what we provide.
Throughout the year we hold monthly meetings at which we host speakers, many of whom have been City staff and Councilmembers who reach out to us to distribute information and request to be invited to speak directly to our members in our Zoom meetings. We are a primary means by which they are able to interact personally with residents about a wide variety of city issues.
The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations.
We, in turn, appreciate and value being recognized by the City as do all neighborhood organizations that serve the community. The City has provided grant funding for our annual membership outreach campaigns. Those membership invitations are strictly apolitical and always include a statement recognizing the contribution the City has made to these mailings. This past year when the City directed us to generate and mail our own membership letters rather than distributing them for us, the Board of Northeast Neighbors set up a separate bank account for the City grant so that no commingling with membership dues could occur and the surplus was refunded to the City.
We take very seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
We respectfully request that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D, which is included below.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
16 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Sincerely,
Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website. In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1365&MediaPo sition=&ID=5477&CssClass=
Item 16.D
11/15/22
17 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Melanie Landsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We oppose Agenda 16-D, please vote NO!
The non-profit communities in Santa Monica provide an invaluable service to its residents by researching and sharing information to help the community better understand the critical issues that face our city.
Thank you.
Melanie & Barry Landsberg
Item 16.D
11/15/22
18 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected] Subject: FOSP: City Council 11/15/22 agenda iten 16-D -- OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
November 13, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich, City Council members, City Manager White, City Attorney Sloan From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: City Council 11/15/22 agenda item 16-D
The Board of Directors of Friends of Sunset Park, a 501(c)(4) organization, opposes agenda item 16-D.
Staff Report Printout
D. Request of Councilmember Davis that the City Council direct the City Manager to contact the head of each Neighborhood Organization and Business Improvement District listed on the City's website and ask if the organization or its Board of Directors (acting as a Board) will refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election.
If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
In addition, the City Attorney and City Manager are directed to draft a policy that states as a condition of receiving City funding any Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District that makes campaign endorsements must provide a disclaimer on any written campaign endorsement materials stating no public funds are used for campaign purposes and views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
19 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 501(c)(4) political activity: https://ballotpedia.org/501(c)(4)
“Political activities, as defined by the IRS, are the actions that participate in the electoral process. The IRS does not consider direct or indirect political influence to be in the domain of promoting social welfare. However, a social welfare organization designated as a 501(c)(4) can engage in some political activity. Unlike the restrictions for 501(c)(3) organizations, 501(c)(4) organizations can legally participate in political activity in support of or opposition to candidates for office. These political activities cannot be the organization's primary activities and cannot be direct donations to a candidate for office or a candidate's committee. “The IRS does consider legislative activities, commonly called "lobbying," to be activities that further social welfare purposes. Thus, a 501(c)(4) organization may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying so long as the lobbying is related to the organization's exempt purpose.” Conclusion: The city can place restrictions on how the neighborhood organizations spend city grants. But the city can neither tell neighborhood organizations how to spend members' dues, nor restrict the neighborhood organizations’ political activities. Only the IRS can do that, according to whether each group is a 501(c)(3) or a 501 (c)(4).
While the 7 city-recognized neighborhood organizations in Santa Monica are now allowed to apply for city grants of up to $7,000 per year, as of 2020 according the Santa Monica Lookout, City Council members received an annual salary of $15,696, while the mayor made $18,282, plus all 7 Council members also received $29,012 a year in benefits, and a budgeted car allowance of $4,416.
Question: Would Council member Davis' 16-D proposal also require City Council members to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or ballot measures, since they also receive city funding? Again, the Board of Directors of Friends of Sunset Park, a 501(c)(4) organization, opposes agenda item 16-D.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
20 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
The Boards of Northeast Neighbors, NOMA, and I'm sure all our other neighborhood associations support both the law governing 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and the City's requirement of neighborhood associations, including the federal law permitting 501(c)(4)-status organizations to engage in political lobbying and campaign activities.
P{lease vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.D
11/15/22
21 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council
As a 39 year resident of Santa Monica I was appalled to read the language of Item 16-D on next week’s council agenda. I find this proposal totally unacceptable and urge a “NO” vote.
This is a blatant attempt to stifle reasonable, traditional and invaluable political discourse in the city to protect the entrenched and powerful. It smacks of intimidation and the city acting as a bully.
I am not an attorney, but I have just read the California State statue language for the allowed activities of a 501(c)(4) non-profit and I do not see any prohibition of political activities. It seems to me what you are proposing is the canceling out of an otherwise legal activity? If the City provides operational funds or grants to a local association, it seem to me their only obligation would be to isolate or separate those funds from other income such as dues, grants or gifts. Then, subject to audit, the City could be reassured that City funds were not used for a political purpose.
It also seems silly to have any political flyer, poster or lawn sign say who did not pay for its production (ie. The City of SM). Can you imagine a Vote for Biden sign have to say at the bottom that it was not paid for by a Dojdal Trump PAC.
Santa Monica should be encouraging a vibrant and respectful dialogue on all political candidates and voter related issues.
It saddens and certainly disappoints me to think one of you thought it a good idea to put such an anti-democratic proposal forward for consideration.
Please vote “NO” on Item 16-D.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
22 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 Thank you,
Roger Hill
Item 16.D
11/15/22
23 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 16.D
11/15/22
24 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose this item 16-D.
This proposal has a chilling effect on neighborhood organizations by requiring them to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
Neighborhood organizations have a legitimate interest in endorsing or opposing measures that affect their residents and should not be threatened with reprisals by the City for doing their duty. This is just an attempt to intimidate neighborhood organizations into silence and violates their right to free speech and political expression. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.D
11/15/22
25 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>; Neighbor Karen ⚸⚹⚺⚻⚼⚽⚾⚿⛀⛁⛂⛃⛄Percy Neighborhood Watch Buddy <[email protected]>; Neighbor ౷౸౹ Carol Dickinson <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
ᨸᨹᨺᨻᨼᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ 310-656-0000
᠀᠁᠂[email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
26 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 -----Original Message-----
From: Melanie Landsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We oppose Agenda 16-D, please vote NO!
The non-profit communities in Santa Monica provide an invaluable service to its residents by researching and sharing information to help the community better understand the critical issues that face our city.
Thank you.
Melanie & Barry Landsberg
Item 16.D
11/15/22
27 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
The Boards of Northeast Neighbors, NOMA, and I'm sure all our other neighborhood associations support both the law governing 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and the City's requirement of neighborhood associations, including the federal law permitting 501(c)(4)-status organizations to engage in political lobbying and campaign activities.
P{lease vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.D
11/15/22
28 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marianne O'Donnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: November 15th Council Meeting: Comment for Agenda item 16D
EXTERNAL
Comment about item 16D
(https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=39661&MeetingID=1365):
Council,
Penalizing neighborhood organizations for exercising their right to an equal voice is discriminatory, by attempting to muzzle them when multiple other interest groups also endorse, oppose and finance candidates and measures (Chamber of Commerce, SMPD, SMFD, SMRR, Local 11, Santa Monica Forward, stealthy groups from out of town, etc., to name a few; even Councilmembers.) This request by Councilmember Davis is a denial of democracy. It denies residents the right to hear their own neighborhood associations' opinion, by suggesting that neighborhood associations be canceled from official City listings, as well as their City grants (a mere $7,000 per year each.) I would like to remind the City Council, and City Hall, that residents and their associations are also stakeholders -and the most rooted- in the governance and direction of Santa Monica. They have the right to have a voice, too.
I strongly encourage the City Council to vote this request from Councilmember Davis down, and thus respect the democratic process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marianne O'Donnell
90405
Item 16.D
11/15/22
29 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Roger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council
As a 39 year resident of Santa Monica I was appalled to read the language of Item 16-D on next week’s council agenda. I find this proposal totally unacceptable and urge a “NO” vote.
This is a blatant attempt to stifle reasonable, traditional and invaluable political discourse in the city to protect the entrenched and powerful. It smacks of intimidation and the city acting as a bully.
I am not an attorney, but I have just read the California State statue language for the allowed activities of a 501(c)(4) non-profit and I do not see any prohibition of political activities. It seems to me what you are proposing is the canceling out of an otherwise legal activity? If the City provides operational funds or grants to a local association, it seem to me their only obligation would be to isolate or separate those funds from other income such as dues, grants or gifts. Then, subject to audit, the City could be reassured that City funds were not used for a political purpose.
It also seems silly to have any political flyer, poster or lawn sign say who did not pay for its production (ie. The City of SM). Can you imagine a Vote for Biden sign have to say at the bottom that it was not paid for by a Dojdal Trump PAC.
Santa Monica should be encouraging a vibrant and respectful dialogue on all political candidates and voter related issues.
It saddens and certainly disappoints me to think one of you thought it a good idea to put such an anti-democratic proposal forward for consideration.
Please vote “NO” on Item 16-D.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
30 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 Thank you,
Roger Hill
Item 16.D
11/15/22
31 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 16.D
11/15/22
32 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 10:58 AM
To: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Meeting of Nov. 15, 2022-Please Oppose Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must request that you oppose this item 16-D.
This proposal has a chilling effect on neighborhood organizations by requiring them to refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates or measures in any future election. If the Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District will not make that commitment, then the City Manager is authorized and directed to remove that Neighborhood Organization or Business Improvement District from any listing of such organizations on the City's website and to remove any hyperlinks to the organization’s website.
Neighborhood organizations have a legitimate interest in endorsing or opposing measures that affect their residents and should not be threatened with reprisals by the City for doing their duty. This is just an attempt to intimidate neighborhood organizations into silence and violates their right to free speech and political expression. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.D
11/15/22
33 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 From: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Cc: Heidi Jo Corey <[email protected]>; Neighbor Karen ⚸⚹⚺⚻⚼⚽⚾⚿⛀⛁⛂⛃⛄Percy Neighborhood Watch Buddy <[email protected]>; Neighbor ౷౸౹ Carol Dickinson <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 We strongly oppose Agenda 16-D - Please vote No!
We feel that the non-profit organizations provide communities in Santa Monica with important and current information regarding Santa Monica. We value their information to help understand various local issues.
Thank you,
ᨸᨹᨺᨻᨼᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
ᏟᏠᏡᏢᏣᏤᏥ 310-656-0000
᠀᠁᠂[email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
34 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022 -----Original Message-----
From: Melanie Landsberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 16-D, City Council meeting of Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
We oppose Agenda 16-D, please vote NO!
The non-profit communities in Santa Monica provide an invaluable service to its residents by researching and sharing information to help the community better understand the critical issues that face our city.
Thank you.
Melanie & Barry Landsberg
Item 16.D
11/15/22
35 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 5:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote No on Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
The Boards of Northeast Neighbors, NOMA, and I'm sure all our other neighborhood associations support both the law governing 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations and the City's requirement of neighborhood associations, including the federal law permitting 501(c)(4)-status organizations to engage in political lobbying and campaign activities.
P{lease vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 16.D
11/15/22
36 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Marianne O'Donnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: November 15th Council Meeting: Comment for Agenda item 16D
EXTERNAL
Comment about item 16D
(https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=30&ID=39661&MeetingID=1365):
Council,
Penalizing neighborhood organizations for exercising their right to an equal voice is discriminatory, by attempting to muzzle them when multiple other interest groups also endorse, oppose and finance candidates and measures (Chamber of Commerce, SMPD, SMFD, SMRR, Local 11, Santa Monica Forward, stealthy groups from out of town, etc., to name a few; even Councilmembers.) This request by Councilmember Davis is a denial of democracy. It denies residents the right to hear their own neighborhood associations' opinion, by suggesting that neighborhood associations be canceled from official City listings, as well as their City grants (a mere $7,000 per year each.) I would like to remind the City Council, and City Hall, that residents and their associations are also stakeholders -and the most rooted- in the governance and direction of Santa Monica. They have the right to have a voice, too.
I strongly encourage the City Council to vote this request from Councilmember Davis down, and thus respect the democratic process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marianne O'Donnell
90405
Item 16.D
11/15/22
37 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Andrew Hoyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting November 15, 2022 Item 16D
EXTERNAL
Gleam,
Why do you hate us so much?
Andrew Hoyer
There is only one moment in time when it is essential to awaken. That moment is now. - Buddha
Item 16.D
11/15/22
38 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Darrell Robb <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11/15/22 agenda item 16-D
EXTERNAL
RE: November 15 – City Council – Agenda Item 16-D – Request by Councilmember Davis that neighborhood organizations commit to refraining from endorsing or opposing candidates or ballot measures in future, or else links to their names and websites should be removed from the city website.
It must be noted that while the 7 neighborhood organizations are allowed to apply for city grants of up to $7,000 per year, as of 2020 according the Santa Monica Lookout, City Council members received an annual salary of $15,696, while the mayor made $18,282, plus all 7 Council members also received $29,012 a year in benefits, and a budgeted car allowance of $4,416.
Does Council member Davis' 16-D proposal also apply to City Council members, since they also receive city funding?
Meanwhile, according to the IRS, neighborhood organizations that have 501(c)(4) status ARE allowed to endorse or oppose candidates, legislation, and ballot measures. While the city can place restrictions on how the city grants are spent, it cannot restrict how membership dues are spent.
Sincerely,
(s) Darrell Robb
1440 23rd St, #312
Santa Monica CA 90404-2924
Item 16.D
11/15/22
39 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter Altschuler <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Ms. Davis’s request to compel community organizations to cease endorsing City Council candidates is a lesson in political malfeasance. Any attempt to restrict the right of those organizations to support candidates for elective office is inherently unConstitutional, denying them the freedom of speech that even corporations have been granted by Citizens United and McCutcheon.
The effect of item 16-D would be to punish residents — through organizations they have formed to represent the values they consider important to their neighborhoods — by withholding both visibility on the City’s website and access to City funding. Given the candidates who have been endorsed by those organizations, it is possible to conclude that Ms. Davis is hoping to eliminate a threat to her own incumbency and its checkered history of subverting the interests of Santa Monica residents to the interests of developers and businesses that do not have residents’ best interests at heart.
I strongly urge you to quash Ms. Davis’s request and, in doing so, make a clear declaration that community organizations and the endorsements they make can never be the targets of political retribution. p
Item 16.D
11/15/22
40 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: Re: OPPOSE - : City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
I oppose Item 16-D on the Nov. 15 City Council Agenda.
Northeast Neighbors is a 501(c)(4) non-profit charitable organization that has served the community for more than 22 years. They are a non-profit, all volunteer group dedicated to advocating for residents and improving life in our neighborhood and city.The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of our neighborhood association and all neighborhood associations. y.
They take seriously both the law governing 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations and the City’s requirements of neighborhood associations.
STOP PLAYING LEGAL GAMES TO END FREE SPEECH IN SANTA MONICA WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF IT.. GLEAM DAVIS SURE DIDN'T MOVE TO SILENCE HER PET SANTA MONICA FORWARD GROUP FOR THEIR DIRECT LOBBYING..
Gleam stop the games.. the City is so tired of them from you and SMF.
Danielle Charney
Resident since April Fool's Day 1982
Can't believe I still love this place with all my heart Item 16.D
11/15/22
41 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Zina Josephs; [email protected]; Tricia Crane; Andrew Hoyer Subject: Subject: 16D
EXTERNAL
To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
November 14, 2022
Mayor and City Council Members:
The Board of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) has voted to urge you to oppose item 16D. While historically NOMA has not chosen to endorse candidates, we support all Neighborhood Associations' right to do so. We have in the past felt it important to support or oppose ballot measures of great impact to residents, and this proposal would deny our right to do so.
The proposal is anti-democratic and antagonistic. It amounts to a gag order on the free speech of Neighborhood Associations which have long been a valuable source of information about City policy, a forum for residents to interact with City representatives, and a place to discuss politics and issues important to residents.
There are already well-established legal limits that 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations must adhere to regarding candidate and policy endorsements, which renders this proposal unnecessary and unwelcome.
Threatening to take away Neighborhood Associations' modest City funding and recognition, even if groups are in compliance with current non-profit organization regulations, would unnecessarily stifle public discourse.
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
[email protected]
Item 16.D
11/15/22
42 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Adam Gross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 9:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; David White; [email protected] Subject: City Council 11/15/22 agenda item 16-D – OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
Threatening neighborhood organizations with Item 16-D makes no sense if you value all citizens’ ability to participate in our democratic process. This item seems even more disingenuous when the council member promoting it has not been endorsed by the neighborhood organizations she is trying to silence.
The neighborhood organizations are mostly funded by dues, not a small potatoes city grant. This is a lawyer’s justification to silence free speech. Please focus on real problems like homelessness, the city budget, and public safety.
Sincerely,
Adam Gross
Item 16.D
11/15/22
43 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: City Council Mtg. 11/15/22 - Item 16D - OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) has voted to urge you to oppose item 16D. While historically Wilmont has chosen to not endorse candidates, we support all Neighborhood Associations' right to do so. We have in the past felt it important to support or oppose ballot measures of great impact to residents, and this proposal would deny our right to do so.
The proposal is anti-democratic. It amounts to a gag order on the free speech of Neighborhood Associations which have been a valuable source of information about City policy, a forum for education via residents interacting with City representatives and a place to discuss policies and issues important to residents. This year two successful City Council candidates' forums were held as part of our education outreach. One was facilitated by Wilmont and was an introduction to ALL the City Council candidates and the second one, which provided a detailed question and answer forum again for ALL City Council candidates, was facilitated by the Neighborhood Council.
There are already well-established legal limits that 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations must adhere to regarding candidate and policy endorsements, which renders this proposal unnecessary and unwelcome. Threatening to take away Neighborhood Associations' modest City funding and recognition, even if groups are in compliance with current non-profit organization regulations, would unnecessarily stifle public discourse. To outline how modest the city's grant is, given that Wilmont is the largest neighborhood, the current funding of $7,000 a year is insufficient for Wilmont to reach out to its more than 13,000 addresses given the cost of $1.00 for each piece of direct first-class direct mail i.e., $13,000.
Thank-you,
Wilmont Board
Item 16.D
11/15/22
44 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Agenda Item 16.D - November 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
Council,
A neighborhood association’s purpose often includes advocating for the neighborhood to local government to make resident concerns known and seek improvements on behalf of its stakeholders. It is critical to this work to endorse local candidates and measures to help better inform its members – the stakeholders of the City of Santa Monica.
That being said, if the City intends to place restrictions on the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program to prohibit use of grant funds, the City should consider the following:
• There has been a lack of compliance with the Neighborhood Organization Grant Program, including my own Neighborhood Organization failing to include their bylaws to their grant application. The grant was approved despite the fact that the Neighborhood Organization failed to submit the minimum documentation. • My neighborhood organization's structure is such that it does not actual allow for meaningful stakeholder input. The Board makes 100% of the decisions – without approval of the members and often without consultation or an opportunity for input of the residents. There is a complete lack of democratic process in that the Board slate of candidates that appear on the organization’s election ballot is exclusively complied by the Board and during times not authorized by its bylaws. While there is an ability to “write in” a candidate, the printed names on the ballot exclusively are those “recommended” by the Board. Coupled with the problem of having no term limits and non-compliance with election periods, the effect is that the same Board, with the same uniform viewpoints remain in control of the organization – and as a result, in control of the City grant funds – for many decades. This is to the exclusion of the majority of the resident stakeholders. A handful of privileged Board members are able to maintain control of the organization and the City grant funds to promote their personal agendas, regardless of whether their personal viewpoints align with the viewpoints of the majority of the organizations stakeholders.
Therefore, if the grant program is to be revised, the council should also consider implementing the following additional requirements:
• A method to ensure that organizations comply with the requirement to include their bylaws with the application;
• The bylaws require that a majority of it's membership attending a monthly meeting or participating by an e-vote approve the expenditure of any of the city grant funds. Stated differently, a prohibition that expenditure of the city grant funds cannot be solely approved by its Board members; • The bylaws require a majority of it's membership attending a monthly meeting or participating by an e-vote approve of all city council, board or commission endorsements and/or any local measures; • Alternatively, if Board members are permitted to exclusively determine how grant funds are to be spent, there be a maximum 4-year term limit for each Board member, the organization must engage in a process where members are permitted to nominate candidates to run for the Board with such candidate names and bio’s printed on the ballot in the same font and appearance as candidates recommended by the board.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
45 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Thank you for your consideration.
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park Resident
Item 16.D
11/15/22
46 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: 11/15/2022 agenda item 16D
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers, I write in support of agenda item 16D, as well as to note that I feel it overlooks another important point regarding city funding of the neighborhood organizations. To my knowledge, all of the neighborhood organizations require a paid membership in order to be a voting member; I know this is the case for the Wilmont Org. These organizations should not be allowed to require paid membership to have voting participation if they are going to receive public funding and city recognition as the official representative group for their neighborhoods. They cannot reasonably simultaneously be private clubs and official neighborhood organizations, which I believe also ties back into why they should not be allowed to issue political endorsements if they're receiving city funding and official recognition.
As an aside, I read in the Santa Monica Lookout today that Friends of Sunset Park, Northeast Neighbors, Midcity Neighbors, and the NOMA Org all opposed agenda item 16D. Yet the FOSP website states "All of FOSP’s revenue comes from membership dues and related donations", and the NOMA website states "All of NOMA’s income comes from membership fees and related donations." I can't help but find it curious that they think 16D is such a problem while claiming (wrongly) that they don't receive city funding.
-Jason Mastbaum
Item 16.D
11/15/22
47 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan; David White
Cc: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Jorge Casuso; Sam Catanzaro; Dolores Quintana; Santa Monica Observer; [email protected]; Sue Himmelrich
Subject: 👍 16D ---> SUPPORT disclaimer requirement for city funded neighborhood groups
EXTERNAL
FACT: The Supreme Court has generally supported restrictions on government funding, even when those restrictions may stop or have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of recipients.
This item is a step in the right direction in that it promotes transparency and prevents conflicts of interest, and perhaps most importantly, the appearance of conflict of interest, a concept that many Santa Monicans do not seem to be familiar with.
The neighborhood groups should at a minimum include a disclaimer when making political endorsements, as proposed by the item.
The groups currently engaging in political advocacy could also consider creating an affiliated 501 (c) (3) organization to keep the different types of funding formally separate. This is quite common, e.g.
The Sierra Club has both a 501 (c) 3 and a 501 (c) 4 organizations, as does Abundant Housing LA, an organization which has been under scrutiny within the City due to the apparent conflict of interest of its Executive Director when she sat on the Santa Monica Housing Commission.
Another option is that the City could establish a policy that limits disbursing City funding to the neighborhood groups that are 501 (c) 3 organizations.
In my years of advocacy within the City I have noticed some disturbing habits and behaviors relating to the neighborhood groups and the heads of some of them. For one, the habit of the neighborhood group heads meeting monthly outside of the public view while calling themselves the “neighborhood council.” The groups claim to be representing the neighborhoods but choose to have secret meetings? Such a lack of transparency is a slap in the face of the community, and creates the impression of nefarious activity that the groups are not willing to share with the community – while gladly putting out the hand for public funding.
We have to also acknowledge the fact that the neighborhood groups are in fact comprised of a handful of active members, and it is rare that more than a few dozen citizens participate in their regular meetings or otherwise remain involved. I would venture to claim that most Santa Monicans are unaware of the existence of the neighborhood groups, or are disinterested in what the groups have to offer. Such lack of involvement begs the question whether the groups put in an effort to survey and respond to the community’s needs and interests, or whether they prefer to keep the involvement of residents to a minimum for one reason or another, for example to have more control over the group which in reality is tiny and therefore invites less diversity of opinion, scrutiny or demands of accountability.
Item 16.D
11/15/22
48 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 2 As a resident who lived in Wilmont for over five years, I was never aware of the existence of a neighborhood group in my neighborhood. It was with surprise that I read on the Wilmont website a few months ago that Wilmont “represented” the interests of thousands of Santa Monicans. Is it possible to represent the interests of the residents who are unaware of the existence of the group? Is such a disconnect present in all the Santa Monica neighborhood groups? What I find troubling as well is that I have witnessed behaviors where the head of a neighborhood group acted motivated by her private interests (ego) rather than the interests of the community. Such petty, entitled and narcissistic behavior from a person who collects public funding for her group is unacceptable. I certainly do not wish for my tax dollars to support such behavior or person running a neighborhood group.
I am flabbergasted by some of the neighborhood groups bringing up free speech when opposing this item, as I am aware of instances where the same neighborhood groups engaged in suppressing free speech in the chats during their ostensibly public zoom meetings, and gave a hard time to participants with dissenting views, all while collecting public funding for the group’s activities.
It is my view that the City would be wise examining closely what legal or fiscal relationship, if any, it would like to have with the neighborhood groups as they exist now, and the neighborhood groups would be wise to examine their goals and commitments to the community rather than the handful of people who sit on their boards, and their private interests. A truly ambitious group would not be hung up on receiving funding from the City as it invariably comes with some sort of strings attached, but would instead actively work to engage as many residents is it can, and thus grow its power independently.
A political campaign endorsement by neighborhood groups, as passive/lazy a form of political advocacy as it is, if allowed by the City as a funding agency at all, should be required to be accompanied by a disclaimer distancing the endorsement from the position of the City of Santa Monica. Any policy encouraging transparency is good, especially in a small town with incestuous political relationships and an entrenched establishment fueled by corruption.
As a final note, since some of the neighborhood groups were very upset that Mayor Himmelrich promoted her ballot measure without a disclaimer that the proposed measure was not affiliated with the City of Santa Monica, they should have no problem putting a disclaimer on any of their own political endorsements as long as they receive any public funding from the City and are listed as a City-recognized group on the City website. I cannot think of a downside to being transparent.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 16.D
11/15/22
49 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; [email protected]; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: PNA SM; Brian ONeil
Subject: Oppose Item 16-D; City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Manager, City Attorney From: PNA Board of Directors
Re: City Council Meeting Nov. 15, 2022 Agenda Item 16-D While the PNA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization and not be technically affected by item 16-D, we urge you to vote against Item 16-D, which would effectively serve as a gag order against the 501(c)(4) neighborhood associations in the city. We urge you to vote against Item 16-D due to the apparently punitive nature of the item and the appearance that such an action is being taken in a politically retaliatory fashion in the wake of the recent election cycle.
Neighborhood associations are made up of volunteers that care about improving life in their neighborhoods and within Santa Monica. It is a primary means by which residents are able to interact personally and engage on a wide variety of city issues. The City benefits greatly from the volunteer efforts of all neighborhood associations.
Those neighborhood associations with a 501(c)(4) status are enabled and protected by Federal law to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity. It is within their right under federal law to endorse candidates for City Council. This action has the appearance of being retaliatory against those neighborhood associations that have advocated for residents’ rights and needs. Furthermore, this action, rather than encourage civic engagement, would only chill public debate in our city.
We urge that the Council vote NO on Agenda Item 16-D.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
PNA Board of Directors
Item 16.D
11/15/22
50 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please reject the request to throttle our official neighborhood organizations for exercising their legal rights.
I am distressed that a City Councilmember wants to kneecap a vital resource for residents. Our community is enriched by the indispensable service these neighborhood groups provide.
Please reject item 6-D.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 16.D
11/15/22
51 of 51 Item 16.D
11/15/22
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comment (5477 : Campaign endorsements from Neighborhood groups & BIDS) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Parra, Brock and de la Torre to direct the City Manager to evaluate the impacts and feasibility of changing the Santa Monica Housing Authority Payment Standard basis to Small Area Fair Market Rate and increasing select zip code/unit size categories to 120% SAFMR to mitigate negative impacts as recommended by the Housing Commission by mid-December.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comment
B. ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022
16.E
Packet Pg. 751
EE v, T 'rs. ' a $
Item 16.E
11/15/22
1 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comment (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) *
s(\
No
N'
ut
=o
;.$
3 3
&
c-)
q
-b
$
6'
q
a
s
-t
s
B
3 ,s
R
f.
6f'
5 R
o
Xr)
o
E"
+
o
-x
h
o
\?
s
\
-)
a
\$
ND'
BE
rb
-)
.s
-J-
-.O
P
G
S\9
-T1
20 S
o'
s
s
rD
S.
o
N
e
$_
+
I
*
o
De
3F
E
+'
5 o
-+
1-
c
v
a
+
B
F
a\
-1)
d
F
6'
-T
o
sS
s
Ndt"
d
6'
o
+
J
r$
(A
dt
R"
s
s
\$
$*
n+s
1q
+t
3 il
d
B$
Tl
.D=
o
T
--t
o,
+5
n
(n
3 P_
>
{_
F
s
x
D
>
F'
g
;0I
a
o
{-
3 s
cr
o
s
f,
J
f\
(n
t,
I
-f
s
f,
o_
o
L^
t)
(^
c
R
N
il
$>.
+.
G.'
.T
-o
s
3 8-
-)
o
t
d
b
V)
D
J
(n
H
:
N
I
O.
-J*
s
\l
s
\
d
\
R"
$
o\
o
)s
TI
=
E
Fn
o
+
o-
\
-t
o
-b
:h
6'
o
-b
o
c-)
o
s
f
d
:
-.l
\Y
s
ft
f,
hf
r0
x
o
(D
(o
n_
-l-
:r
n
o
te
'Tt
:3
x
f,
a-
-a
h
's
:
I
o\
ctt
bs
-\)
-T
o
c$
d
3 -ro
.s
+
6'
-\l
A
J,
C+
^:' t^
d$
5'
.s
t
di
(^
-+
)
g
:>
+
€
J
d
J.
-r
l
s
x,
3g
S
tn
ah(/)
-L
$
s
+
rD
o
;.9
-Tr
-
->
3 sg;:; i=g
tg8
5'+H e
iss$3:B
i*t$i$
$$$g*g
$* $${$1
i$*3F*
s
=
^=
r=
(\
-t
-*
rU
o
N
t\)
dHHFs
T ti,po
Rs sEl
eg $f3
R T
*8.€
$:N * +S
&* $$$
i-$ fi$I
i$5-i aqb $6
$s ii
$t ni^\ s(
\^
.R
--
\
(l,
s
-t
a
F
B5
s_
s-f
R
o=
a
o
rs
-I'
o
q
N
+
(n,
s-l'
)
s
Nto
t t
\
o
N)
EB
Sp-)
Item 16.E
11/15/22
2 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 753
Attachment: Written Comment (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) ,SBverely rent-rmrw-1ec/_; qss&f/ve} oufreach 7l> fhese po.r-ti'c1pan"ts- o.nd offer +hem fhe -Fa.mi/y l-¼t'ver 120,Z Fm R po:yment
FinaJljJ o,r,d ,h fhe f('eo.f)f/me; Hoiu;in.3 ,S'faff could return ·tc. --I-he H()u.sf1>.3 Cotnmission 10 fhe near f'qt()re · -for o. mor_e +ho43hff't1/ c/fscussion wil-h housir:9 bllrden/' por-t-out d0i-/q 0ind To .su.gge�f various opftdh<5; -fqking {hTo accoun·t pa.r-tici pant- Wide need qr,c/ fra3ram budget -fa.c1orcs,, Thank yolf,
Stncerel,Y)
� . . � . ( �
R (cha rd Hi lfbr>
Hous i ().9 Commisslof)e;
Item 16.E
11/15/22
3 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comment (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; David White
Subject: 11/15/2022 Agenda Item 16-E
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Please approve agenda item 16-E. Orange County and Los Angeles County Housing Choice Vouchers have already been increased and are now worth more than Santa Monica's vouchers. It's a no brainer and easy to do.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 16.E
11/15/22
4 of 4 Item 16.E
11/15/22
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comment (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area Fair Market Rate) 1 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Housing Commission
26 October 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
The Santa Monica Housing Commission voted on 6 October 2022 to advise the City Council and Housing Authority Board to direct Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) staff to do the following by the January 2023 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) deadline for such actions:
1. Change the SMHA Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) payment standard basis from an exception to the Fair Market Rate (FMR) to the Small Area Fair Market Rate (SAFMR) with some corrections, and
2. Increase SMHA HCV payment standards to reflect current market rents, using available discretionary measures.
Recommendation 1
The Housing Commission strongly advises changing the HCV payment standard from the greater Los Angeles area metro Fair Market Rate (FMR) for several reasons:
A. The LA metro FMR is historically significantly lower than the FMR in Santa Monica1; it is not a logical basis from which to begin determining a payment standard for Santa Monica.
B. Because the LA metro FMR is inadequate for Santa Monica, SMHA must deviate from the metro FMR by utilizing a HUD exception to increase payment standards accordingly. In 2016 that exception was approximately 175% of the metro FMR for a two bedroom unit.
C. Continuing to bridge the discrepancy between the metro FMR and Santa Monica rents with an exception from HUD gives an artificially and inappropriately low baseline that contributes to 1 See https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area; https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html for Santa Monica zip codes 90401-90405.
16.E.b
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area 2 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity unfair housing practices. Disability accessible housing is difficult to find, especially in Santa Monica. Where it does exist, it tends to be more expensive than average units. However, disabled, low income Santa Monicans are uniquely prevented from receiving a payment standard increase as a reasonable accommodation of disability, despite the ubiquity of this practice nationwide, because HUD caps PHA approval of such exceptions at 120% of the metro FMR2, which the SMHA payment standard already exceeds with the HUD exception. While HUD may approve a payment standard above 120% as a reasonable accommodation3, such approvals are rare, and usually do not exceed 140% metro FMR4, which the SMHA payment standard also already exceeds with the HUD exception. Therefore, a metro FMR payment standard basis for SMHA payment standards uniquely discriminates against disabled and low income Santa Monicans, preventing them from securing accessible local housing.
The Housing Commission strongly recommends changing the SMHA HCV payment standard basis to the Small Area Fair Market Rate (SAFMR) for several reasons:
D. SAFMR, unlike the metro FMR, defines fair market rate by individual zip code5 instead of the average of all zip codes across a large region. By definition, it is tailored to the actual housing prices in the City of Santa Monica, zip codes 90401-90405.
E. SAFMR does not require a HUD payment standard exception to mitigate a fundamentally inaccurate metro FMR.
F. The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) and Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) recommend SAFMR as best practice across housing jurisdictions because it is granular, and therefore more fair and efficient. Payment standards based on SAFMR raise or lower those based on metro FMR according to hyperlocal housing costs, resulting in payment standards that are neither too high nor too low for an area.6 G. Because a SMHA HCV payment standard based on SAFMR may be raised to 120% SAFMR by the PHA as a reasonable accommodation of a disability, and higher if necessary with HUD approval, disabled, low income Santa Monicans will be provided with more equal access to housing via SMHA programs, as required by federal law.7 Furthermore, the Housing Commission recommends that SMHA ask HUD to reevaluate the listed SAFMR for zip codes 90404 and 90405, which are lower than actual market rates in those areas due 2 24 CFR § 982.505(d).
3 24 CFR § 982.503(c)(3).
4 Personal communication with HUD staff, late 2021.
5 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html 6 https://prrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NHLP_PRRAC_Voluntary_SAFMR_One-Pager.pdf 7 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disability_overview
16.E.b
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area 3 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity to insufficient data. While this request is important to ensure the federally determined SAFMR is accurate throughout Santa Monica, it need not delay or immediately impact the Housing Commission’s other recommendations, as there are discretionary corrective measures available to SMHA to make minor adjustments to SAFMR in select zip codes, as detailed below.
Recommendation 2
In addition to changing the SMHA HCV payment standard basis from a broad and inaccurate metro area FMR to a granular and custom SAFMR, the Housing Commission also strongly recommends SMHA raise the resulting HCV payment standards to accurately reflect current Santa Monica market rents. This is crucial for several reasons:
A. Adequate HCV payment standards are required to ensure issued HCVs can be utilized at all.
Santa Monica’s outdated payment standards currently make it difficult for SMHA program participants to find habitable housing to which they can apply their HCV8.
B. Adequate HCV payment standards are required to ensure SMHA program participants can utilize their HCVs across the city, not just in the Pico and Downtown neighborhoods, particularly areas lining I-10, where they are currently concentrated. Such housing mobility affirmatively furthers fair housing as directed by HUD.9
C. The primary data underlying annual SAFMR determinations by HUD are 2-6 years old10.
Therefore, annual SAFMR listings will always be somewhat out of date, potentially requiring Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to make discretionary adjustments to account for current market rents.
D. In times of economic and social upheaval, such as the prolonged coronavirus pandemic, market rents may shift more than usual, requiring local correction to ensure HCVs remain usable.
Changing the SMHA payment standard basis to a SAFMR model, as the Housing Commission strongly recommends, would increase the payment standards for each Santa Monica zip code as indicated in Table 2 below, except where highlighted in yellow. These highlighted portions show problematic impacts, mostly on the Pico Neighborhood.
8 Personal experience and hundreds of personal communications, 2021-2022. 9 https://www.hud.gov/AFFH 10 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/01/2022-18905/fair-market-rents-for-the-housing-choice-voucherprogram-moderate-rehabilitation-single-room
16.E.b
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area 4 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Based on data and recommendations submitted to the Housing Commission by Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA), Santa Monica Office11, the Housing Commission strongly recommends the following additional changes to address concerns about the 90404 and 90405 zip codes:
In addition to changing the payment standard basis to SAFMR, increase payment standards for the zip codes and unit sizes highlighted in yellow in Table 2 (1-4 bedroom units in 90404; 2 bedroom units in 90405) to 120% SAFMR as indicated in the figures in Table 2 highlighted in green.
Table 1: Current SMHA payment standards based on metro FMR, unchanged since 201612 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Table 2: Santa Monica payment standards at 100% SAFMR by zip code, with 120% SAFMR for negatively impacted unit sizes in 90404 and 9040513
Zip Code 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 90401 $2210 $2520 $3200 $4160 $4570
90402 $2020 $2300 $2930 $3810 $4180
90403 $2260 $2580 $3280 $4260 $4680
90404 $1620 $ 1850 $ 2350 $ 3050 $ 3350
90405 $1820 $2070 $ 2630 $3420 $3750
120% SAFMR
90404 — $ 2220 $ 2820 $ 3660 $ 4020
120% SAFMR
90405 — — $ 3156 — —
11 Correspondence from Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at LAFLA, Santa Monica Office, 6 October 2022. 12 https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-payment-standard%5C 13 Correspondence from Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at LAFLA, Santa Monica Office, 6 October 2022. $1512 $1930 $2640 $3366 $3366
16.E.b
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area 5 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Agencies in any metropolitan area that voluntarily adopt a SAFMR payment standard basis have the option to set payment standards for any or all of the ZIP codes they serve, simply by notifying HUD by email. Furthermore, as with exception payment standards, housing authorities can increase payment standards to 120% SAFMR through December 2023 with field office approval.14 The Housing Commission strongly recommends the latter action, increasing the payment standards in the zip codes and unit sizes highlighted in yellow to 120% SAFMR.
City staff have and continue to argue that raising the SMHA payment standard will reduce the total number of vouchers in Santa Monica. This argument is problematic for several reasons:
1. It is disingenuous to denounce relatively fewer vouchers when SMHA does not issue all of the vouchers they currently have.
2. It assumes SMHA is permitted a finite number of vouchers, which is inaccurate. The federal government has increased, and has announced it will continue to increase, HUD spending, making more vouchers available; SMHA only has to request them.
3. Many SMHA HCV holders already occupy units with contract rents that exceed current payment standards. These low income Santa Monicans are leaving and will continue to leave Santa Monica because insufficient payment standards force them to pay the ever increasing difference between the voucher value and the contract rent, resulting in widespread rent burden that often exceeds 50% of program participants' income.
4. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a higher number of SMHA vouchers with payments standards too low to utilize in Santa Monica are worthless. Program participants must find an apartment to rent for less than the payment standard amount within a fixed timeframe or they lose their vouchers. Those forfeited vouchers are subsequently issued to others, who face the same difficulty using them, and so on. Higher numbers of unusable vouchers cannot be preferable to lower numbers of usable vouchers.
The Santa Monica Housing Authority payment standards are counterproductively outdated and low.
Furthermore, the poorly correlated metro FMR payment standard basis poses several challenges.
Fortunately, HUD provides a clear solution for cities like Santa Monica, where SAFMR based payment standards may be adopted and adjusted as needed, thereby more closely aligning payment standards with the precise local market rents to which they must apply.
Santa Monica has an opportunity to demonstrate, and include in annual SMHA reporting, its active efforts to increase HCV utilization and affirmatively further fair housing. Please ensure this vital progress by directing staff to adopt the Housing Commission recommendations detailed above with 14 Correspondence from Denise McGranahan, Senior Staff Attorney at LAFLA, Santa Monica Office, 6 October 2022.
16.E.b
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area 6 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity haste, and before all relevant HUD deadlines for 2023 implementation of such changes. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this increasingly urgent matter for thousands of low income Santa Monicans.
Sincerely,
Michelle Gray
Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
On behalf of the entire Santa Monica Housing Commission
16.E.b
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: ADD-TO: HC Report and Recommendations for SMHA Payment Standard Changes Oct 2022 (5481 : Housing Authority Small Area City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Mayor Himmelrich for the Council to adopt the attached Statement of Apology to African American Residents and their Descendants and direct the City Manager to commit to programs, policies, and investments that can educate the public about this history of discrimination and its ongoing consequences, and to ferreting out and overturning systemically racist policies to ensure that the pain caused by several decades of racial injustice and discrimination against blacks and other people of color is mitigated to the extent possible. Mayor Himmelrich further requests Council to direct the City Manager to post this apology on the City’s website and in a public location within the City.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents B. Written Comment
16.F
Packet Pg. 762
STATEMENT APOLOGIZING TO SANTA MONICA’S AFRICAN AMERICAN
RESIDENTS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS
The City of Santa Monica acknowledges over a century of racial injustice and discrimination against African Americans that have resulted in systemically racist policies that continue to exclude and discriminate against African Americans:
Beginning in the 1880s, African Americans migrated from the southern United States to Santa Monica to escape Jim Crow racial restrictions lured by advertisements promoting the benefits of Southern California, which included employment, good climate, health, beautiful landscapes, and a more liberated lifestyle.
Santa Monica’s first African American residents settled near the railroad tracks on the edge of Santa Monica’s original townsite, which is adjacent to the freeway in downtown today, and established their own church in Santa Monica at Fourth and Bay Streets in 1908, leading to a migration south as far as Strand Street and including the area known as the Belmar Triangle, where the Santa Monica Civic Center and parts of Santa Monica High School are today.
Santa Monica, believed to have been the first African American settlement in any seaside community in the region, allowed black people to enjoy the sand and sun with minimal racial harassment at Bay Street Beach.
In 1922, Santa Monica created its first zoning ordinance, and rushed its adoption before it could be completed for the purpose of denying building permits to a group of wealthy African Americans who wished to establish a bathhouse on a Santa Monica Beach; and further weaponized the new ordinance to close down a popular black-owned jazz club in the Belmar Triangle.
Public meetings reported in Santa Monica papers in the 1920s presented how zoning could ensure that white wealthy and middle-class residents could keep people of color out of their neighborhoods without violating United States Constitutional provisions for equal rights by rationalizing exclusionary provisions in the name of safety and protection of property value.
Single-unit residential zones referred to today as R1 did not permit additional units on site to bring in income to support the property, ensuring that only the wealthiest could move in; and for the same reason, commercial uses of any kind were barred from residential districts.
The industrial zone, up the middle of the city adjacent to the railroad tracks where noxious uses of all kinds were permitted, also allowed single and multi-family residential uses; establishing the only area in the city where blacks and other people of color were permitted to live and establish businesses.
16.F.a
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (5482 : Statement of Apology) Unabashedly racist realtors of the 1920s who wanted to ensure the new zoning provisions were successful at segregating races in the city committed to the insertion of a Caucasians-only clause in every deed they wrote for a Santa Monica property from that point forward.
The 1920’s was a time of enormous population growth in California, which included a surge of new African American migrants to Santa Monica, resulting in a new black neighborhood that thrived east of Fourteenth Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard with new churches and a commercial corridor to serve it along Broadway.
To boost recovery from the Great Depression in the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority began to offer mortgage insurance for homeowners on 30-year amortized loans that allowed the purchase a home for what it would cost to rent, but in order to “protect” the government from risk, loan requirements included a compulsory Caucasians-only deed restriction resulting in a federal-government-subsidized, nation-wide racial segregation program that created new, all-white neighborhoods in Santa Monica.
The Homeowner’s Loan Corporation created maps that marked neighborhoods where people of color lived and worked in red to indicate they were poor loan risks, barring African Americans and other people of color from home improvement or business loans for property they already owned, forcing responsible, employed homeowners of color to endure decades of deferred maintenance as they watched their property values fall.
The result of deed restrictions, prohibitive zoning, and racist realtor practices, African Americans only found homes to rent or purchase in certain integrated sections of Santa Monica between Santa Monica Boulevard and Pico Boulevard, at the edge of downtown, in the Belmar Triangle, and in a discreet section of Ocean Park through the 1950s.
Participating enthusiastically in a nationwide program of urban renewal in the 1950s, City of Santa Monica targeted neighborhoods of color for condemnation; Santa Monica African Americans who were thriving in the Belmar Triangle had homes and businesses condemned and taken away by eminent domain to make way for the city’s new Civic Auditorium and Santa Monica High School expansion; and some structures that had been owned or occupied by African Americans were burned down on site.
In the 1960s the new Santa Monica Freeway cut through the heart of the city predominantly occupied by African Americans and people of Mexican descent, depriving 550 families of longtime investments in homes and businesses; and cutting off black-owned businesses on the Broadway commercial corridor from the community they served so they dwindled away.
Santa Monica blacks endured laws and policies that enforced racial inequities and selective access to rights including choice of profession, choice of housing, and opportunities for land ownership by a well-organized movement both nationwide and in Santa Monica in particular, the dreams and aspirations of Santa Monica’s black families were thwarted; in 1948 the
16.F.a
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (5482 : Statement of Apology) Supreme Court declared restrictive covenants to be unconstitutional, but redlining and other forms of discrimination continued until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 made them illegal.
The effectiveness of racial deed covenants and zoning kept Santa Monica’s African American population at only 2% through the 1930s, much lower than the national average that ranged from 11-13% and has crept up to only about 4% today.
Throughout the history of the City of Santa Monica African Americans showed resilience and strength by establishing a strong community with structures to support each other as they endured the onslaughts of racism including numerous churches, a local chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., clubs and organizations including the Philomatheans and a chapter of the Masons, and the wisdom and leadership of African Americans from Santa Monica who broke through discriminatory structures to become educators, doctors, real estate brokers, postal workers, union organizers, and more.
The legacy of racial discrimination and exclusion through single-family R1 zoning which covers significant land area in Santa Monica, prohibits apartments or multi-family housing in certain areas continues to embed racist and exclusionary mechanisms in our laws.
The legacy of restrictive covenants still mars the Santa Monica landscape today with patterns of racial segregation in that the city’s highest resource neighborhoods remain disproportionately populated with white people.
The legacy of racist policies and systems in Santa Monica has resulted in a number of families who have generations of history with the city but were forced to leave and cannot afford to return.
The legacy of racist policies and systems that were rationalized as ways to promote safety and protection of property value in Santa Monica is a conviction that those polices actually do promote safety and protection, when in fact they are the tools of segregation and exclusion.
In the recent years, across the country, we are witnessing a national movement of grassroots leaders pushing and advocating for all levels of Government to demonstrate commitment to the systematic change necessary to dismantle structures responsible for racial disparities and white supremacist policy.
Cities all over the country are realizing that communities lose their character when they lose their socio-economic and racial diversity and are taking time to reflect on the municipal and state-level decisions from the past that had the impact of significantly reducing the communities of color and black people.
16.F.a
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (5482 : Statement of Apology) THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA:
Apologizes to all African Americans who have lived in the city and endured racism engendered through government codes and racism tolerated by city policies.
Understands that real change will occur when all people recognize the impacts of systemic discrimination in the City of Santa Monica and recognizes and takes responsibility for personal and direct contributions to discrimination whether intentional or inadvertent, culminating with an apology that comes from both the City of Santa Monica, as well as every citizen enjoying her advantages.
Acknowledges over a century of racial injustice and discrimination against African Americans that have resulted in systemically racist policies that continue to exclude and discriminate against African Americans.
Recognizes the contributions and resilience of the African American community and its commitment to fostering reconciliation and friendship, and to protecting civil rights for all.
Resolves to rectify the lingering consequences of discriminatory city policies, and to use this Resolution as a teaching moment for the public to move forward towards justice for all.
Commits to programs, policies, and investments that can educate the public about this history of discrimination and its ongoing consequences, and to ferreting out and overturning systemically racist policies to ensure that the pain caused by several decades of racial injustice and discrimination against African Americans and other people of color is mitigated to the extent possible.
16.F.a
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Statement of Apology to African American Residents and Descendents (5482 : Statement of Apology) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Formal apology
EXTERNAL
The time has come(in fact, it's overdue) for a strong sincere formal apology to the African-American Community for the wrongs done by the city in the past & present. Hoping for your votes & actions in that direction! Thank you.
Bonnie Johnstone
Item 16.F
11/15/22
1 of 2 Item 16.F
11/15/22
16.F.b
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Written Comment (5482 : Statement of Apology) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 1:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; David White; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: City Council Agenda 11/15/2022- Item 16F
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, I strongly support Item 16F, the request of Mayor Himmelrich for the Council to adopt a Statement of Apology to African American Residents and their Descendants and direct the City Manager to commit to programs, policies, and investments that can educate the public about this history of discrimination and its ongoing consequences, and to ferreting out and overturning systemically racist policies to ensure that the pain caused by several decades of racial injustice and discrimination against blacks and other people of color is mitigated to the extent possible, as well as to direct the City Manager to post this apology on the City’s website and in a public location within the City.
I believe this is a step in the right direction towards dismantling systemic racism and enacting programs and policies that would rectify the effects of such systemic racism within our City.
I am grateful to Mayor Himmelrich for placing this item on the agenda and hope that the Council will unanimously support it.
Best Regards,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 16.F
11/15/22
2 of 2 Item 16.F
11/15/22
16.F.b
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written Comment (5482 : Statement of Apology) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.G
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 Parra that the City Council allocate $5,000 of their Discretionary Funds to the Samohi Wrestling Program, a 501 (c) (3). The funding will be used to offset costs related to transportation, tournament fees, lodging for out of town tournaments and equipment, thereby allowing all students on the team to participate in all activities for the season.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.G
Packet Pg. 769
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 15, 2022
Agenda Item: 16.H
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Recommendation to accept Jeff Swimmer's resignation from the Arts Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy.
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. resignation
16.H
Packet Pg. 770
1 Esterlina Lugo
Subject: RE: Jeff Swimmer, resignation - Santa Monica Arts Commission From: Jeff Swimmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:59 PM
To: Shannon Daut <[email protected]>
Subject: Jeff Swimmer, resignation ‐ Santa Monica Arts Commission
EXTERNAL
Dear Shannon, Greetings.
While I have enormously enjoyed and appreciated my time serving on the Santa Monica Arts Commission for the past few years, I'm unfortunately not able to continue serving due to family and professional obligations.
Please consider this letter my formal resignation, effective immediately.
I'm very grateful to have been given this opportunity, and I wish for the Commission great success in the future.
Warm Regards,
Jeff Swimmer
16.H.a
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: resignation (5489 : Resignation: ARTS_J.Swimmer (2 mins))