Santa Monica City Council
September 12, 2023

the competitive environment, and allow our industry the necessary time to regroup and confront the competitive challenge posed by the TNCs.

The truth is, the TNCs have had a large, negative, impact on the taxicab industry in urban centers across the country. While some of this impact may be attributed to the shortcomings of the taxicab industry, the vast bulk of this impact is due to the uneven playing field that has been created by the California Public Utilities Commission’s allowance of this almost entirely deregulated industry to compete directly against the heavily regulated taxicab industry. Controls on pricing, insurance, fleet size, vehicle type, vehicle inspections, driver background checks, and other franchise requirements have created an environment where it has been difficult for the taxi industry to compete. The TNCs simply can operate without much of our cost structure. Add to these issues the fact that the TNCs have been funded with incomprehensible amounts of money, and the situation may seem to some to be insurmountable.

We, however, are not that pessimistic. We believe that our industry can be retooled and can successfully compete against the TNCs. However, it is up to the City to be our partner and to work with us on changes that maintain the public safety and service while reducing the regulatory inequality between us and the TNCs.

This process requires time, including the dialogue that we are beginning with you now, and time to implement any changes that we all can agree to. It is our hope that you agree with us that a franchise extension of a minimum of three years is warranted at this time.

Parking vehicles
As referenced above, the taxicab industry has suffered a loss in business. The data we all provide to the City supports this conclusion. One problem presented by the current franchise structure is that the taxicab franchises have been forced to keep all authorized vehicles in service, and pay to insure them, even when we do not have drivers for them. Each of the five franchisees has had vehicles that have remained out of service for extended periods of time.

The laws of supply-and-demand economics come into play here. When our business is down, drivers will earn less, and we will lose drivers until we achieve equilibrium. When we grow our business, the drivers who we recruit can earn a decent living, and the vehicle stays on the road.

We propose to the City to allow each of the taxi franchises to park up to 25% of their fleets without losing operating authorities. By parking, we mean to say that the City would be formally notified that the vehicle is out of service, and we would not be required to maintain expensive auto insurance on the vehicle. Of course, we would stipulate that no vehicle may ever be driven as long as it is parked.

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Mr. Salvatore Valles
January 27, 2015

This proposal would allow the City’s taxi fleet to ebb and flow with the overall state of the taxi industry’s business, and we would respectfully submit to you that it is a much more logical way for the City to manage its taxi fleet than to force vehicles in service regardless of the state of the market.

The concept of parking vehicles is not without precedent. In the economic slowdown for our industry that occurred after the September 11 attacks, the City of Los Angeles maintained a vehicle parking program for the taxicab industry for a period of two years. This allowed the industry to get back on its feet and place the vehicles in service as the business increased to support them.

Pricing Flexibility
As we have discussed together with you, one of the major ways that the TNCs have been able to take business from the taxi industry is by giving away promotional codes to be used on their apps, sometimes in large amounts. The TNCs are essentially buying our business.

We must have the right to fight back. We need to have the ability to discount fares and give away promo codes just like the TNCs do. This will only benefit the consumers in the City of Santa Monica, and we hope you agree. In any event, we look forward to discussing this with you further.

Housekeeping items

1. Business License Fee
When the franchises were originally bid, it was the understanding of all bidders that the franchise fees paid would be in lieu of business license taxes. This assumption was based on the fact that every other city with taxicab franchises in greater Los Angeles treats business license fees in this way. We believe that it was treated differently in Santa Monica merely as a matter of mistake or oversight. In any event, one item that we would like to include in our discussions is for the Council to take up the waiver of the $250.00 per cab business license fees for companies who pay franchise fees.

More generally, the City needs to address the issue of the value of the franchises themselves.

The value of the franchises is based on the amount of business the franchise brings to the franchisee. The steep decline in business should reduce the value of the franchises, but moreover, the per vehicle franchise fees are now so high that they interfere with a driver’s ability to earn a living thus hampering our ability to deliver needed transportation.

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Mr. Salvatore Valles
January 27, 2015

2. Driver permit issues
Two-Year Renewals. We recommend that the City adopt the same policy that Los Angeles and other cities in the region have adopted by allowing driver permit renewals for two years. This would cut considerably on staff time and would increase efficiency without sacrificing safety.

Prorated Driver Fees. We also recommend that driver permits be prorated as of the date the permit is granted. Each driver is an individual business person and the license fees are not trivial.

As the year goes on, the current policy of charging drivers for a full year when the permit is only good for a few months strikes drivers as unfair and hinders our ability to recruit drivers and keep our cabs in service. Thus it gets in the way of us being able to transport people who need our services. In the alternative, we would propose allowing drivers to renew their permits on their anniversary dates.

Reduced Licensing Time. We request that the city revise the driver application and permitting process to enable us to put drivers in cabs faster. The TNCs have advertised that they can put a driver in a vehicle in two hours. We think that two hours is transparently unsafe, but it’s important to understand what our competition is doing. By contrast, the process for a new Santa Monica driver can take several weeks, sometimes as long as six or eight weeks. We would like to sit down and discuss with you revisions to the application process, testing process, and LiveScan process that would allow drivers to start working sooner without compromising public safety. For instance, most cities have a process where drivers can receive a temporary driving permit almost immediately after fingerprinting. If we are to compete, the time that it takes to put a driver to work must be reduced.

Drivers Who Take Leaves. As you know, ours is an industry with large immigrant populations from, literally, all over the world. Many of these drivers, when they return occasionally to their home countries, take extended leaves away from taxi driving in Santa Monica. However, if too much time passes, or if any of their supporting documentation expires while they are away (such as their drivers’ license or work permit), the permit is revoked and they have to go through the process of qualifying to become a taxi driver as if they were new. We recommend a rule change that would allow these drivers to provide the missing updated documentation and allow the drivers to retain their right to pick up their permit while their permits are still within their validity dates (keeping in mind our recommendation for two-year renewals, above). In other words, what we are requesting here is the ability to temporarily inactivate them while they take a vacation.

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Mr. Salvatore Valles
January 27, 2015

3. Camera System, Recording and Storage Requirements / Other Revisions to the Taxicab Rulebook
We are attaching a list of proposed modifications to the Taxicab Rules of the City of Santa Monica. We look forward to discussing these topics with you further.

4. Taxicab Performance Index Revisions
We have some issues that we would like to discuss with you, along with our recommendations for some revisions.

As mentioned above, we remain confident that by working together, the City and the industry can arrive at a regulatory framework that will allow our industry the opportunity to succeed in the post-TNC world, thus preserving the many benefits of the taxicab industry for the local community.

We look forward to working with you further and invite you to contact us to set up a meeting to discuss these topics in more detail.

Sincerely,
William J. Rouse
General Manager
L.A. Taxi Cooperative,
Inc.

Shirley Pe
General Manager
All Yellow Taxi, Inc. dba
Metro Cab
Simon Momennasab
Director of Operations
Bell Cab Company, Inc.

Nettabai Ahmed
President
Independent Taxi
Owners Association
cc: Ms. Cheryl Shavers

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code January 27, 2015
City of Santa Monica
City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: 2015 Taxicab Franchise Renewal in the City of Santa Monica Dear Sir or Madam:

We write in response to the City’s request for feedback regarding the upcoming taxicab franchise renewal.

Taxi! Taxi! has held a franchise with the City since the inception of the franchise system on November 23, 2010.

Since this time, Taxi! Taxi! has consistently serviced the majority of customers in the City as compared to all of the other franchisees, while still maintaining the highest level of service. In 2012, Taxi! Taxi! serviced 212,845 out of 371,887 trips in the City, which equates to 57.2 % of the overall total trips. See 2013 TCPI. Similarly, in 2013, Taxi Taxi! serviced 193,357 out of 376,408 trips, which equals 51.3% of the overall total trips. However, the ever increasing presence of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber, Sidecar and Lyft have led to a severe drop in the number of calls received by drivers. In 2014, Taxi! Taxi!’s total dispatched trips dropped to 134,230, which is 30% lower than in 2013 and 37% lower than in 2012. Based on these numbers, it is likely the total number of taxicab calls in the City also decreased by approximately 30% in 2014, which equates to only 260,000 calls. This has affected the ability of all Santa Monica taxi drivers to earn sufficient income to support their families and continue driving in the City. The influx of TNC drivers in the City has also led to overcapacity, congestion, and pollution. As outlined below, the only way to bring taxicab driver incomes back to a living wage, reduce emissions, adequately fulfill the City’s needs, reduce the amount of traffic, and decrease the amount of dedicated taxicab curbside spaces is to reduce the number of taxicabs and franchises. Taxi! Taxi! urges the City to reduce the number of taxicabs to a maximum of 125 and award franchises to only the two most qualified companies.

The Impact of Transportation Network Companies
“Companies such as Uber and Lyft are changing the vehicle-for-hire landscape and increasing competition felt by taxicab companies.” See Taxicab Franchise Program Update dated 6/6/13, pg. 10. All franchisees can attest to the fact that the demand for taxicab service has been rapidly decreasing in Santa Monica since the Nelson/Nygaard study was conducted in March of 2008. This drop in the number of service calls is directly attributable to the ever increasing use of rideshare companies like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.

The original Nelson/Nygaard study estimated that the City needs between 210 and 310 taxicabs in order to fulfill its service demands. These estimates did not take into account the enormous number of rideshare drivers that freely pick up passengers throughout both Santa Monica and Los Angeles. Based on Uber’s administrative data, the number of Uber drivers has increased from zero in July 2012 to well over 160,000 in 2014.

Attachment D

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Historically, the number of Uber drivers has doubled every six months for the last two years. See Hall, et al., “An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s Driver-Partners in the United States” (Jan. 22, 2015) (“Hall Article”). As shown in the chart below, the Los Angeles area has experienced the highest amount of growth in Uber drivers, with over 20,000 on the road at the end of 2014.

See Hall Article, pg. 15.

In an effort to determine the average number of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar drivers in the City of Santa Monica, Taxi! Taxi! monitored the mobile applications for each of the companies on a typical Saturday night. During this period, Taxi! Taxi! estimates that there were between 200 and 250 available drivers for hire between the Uber and Lyft platform at any given time. This does not include Sidecar drivers (or those working with other TNC companies), nor does it take into account the number TNC drivers that were already carrying customers throughout the City at the monitoring time. Uber alone offers six different services with various pricing tiers. A sampling of the photographs captured from the Uber and Lyft mobile applications on Saturday, January, 24 2014 is attached to this letter.

The influx of TNCs has severely impacted the ability of taxicab drivers to earn an income sufficient to support their families. As noted in the Nelson/Nygaard study, “the excessive number of cabs makes it hard for drivers to earn a living, results in them working more hours than is safe, and reduces service quality for the public.” See Nelson/Nygaard Taxi Study, Technical Memo., pg. 2-10.

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code The decrease in the number of calls received by drivers has made it impossible for most drivers to earn even a minimum living wage, much less support their families. See, e.g., Blasi, Gary, et al., “Driving Poor: Taxi Drivers and the Regulation of the Taxi Industry in Los Angeles” (2006). A study commissioned by Uber estimates that Uber drivers in the Los Angeles area earn over 30% more income per hour than taxicab drivers and chauffeurs.

See Hall Article, pg. 23. In 2014, taxicab drivers wrote several letters to the City of Santa Monica complaining about their inability to earn a living wage, and protested for two hours by circling the City while honking their horns.

The Solution – Reduce the Number of Taxicabs and Franchises The City has the authority to set the both number of franchises awarded and the number of taxicabs allotted to each franchise. See City of Santa Monica Franchise Ordinance. Taxi! Taxi! urges the City to exercise its discretion and reduce the number of franchises to two based on the Taxicab Company Performance Index. “The performance index is designed as a measurement to be used when considering the extension of franchises at the end of the five-year term of the franchise agreement, which is scheduled for December 31, 2015.” See 2013 TCPI, pg. 2. We further recommend that the number of taxicabs be reduced to 125 total.

The Nelson/Nygaard study was conducted under the assumption that only 45 non-local drivers (i.e., those jointly permitted with the City of Los Angeles) would be in service in the City of Santa Monica on any given day, and that they would account for 450 of the 1,595 trips per day (28%). See Nelson/Nygaard Study, pg. 4-4. As outlined above, this number has been rendered meaningless by the voluminous amount of TNC drivers that are not regulated by the City. Based on the reduction in calls experienced by Taxi! Taxi! (who has historically serviced the largest portion of the City’s passengers), these TNC drivers are likely servicing approximately 40% if not more of the passengers picked up daily in the City. See also, Hall Article, pg. 15 (estimating that there are over 20,000 Uber drivers in the Los Angeles area alone). The increase in TNC drivers has reduced the market for taxicabs in the City, and warrants a reduction in the number of franchises and taxicab permits. Reducing the number of taxicabs to 125 would increase driver income, reduce emissions and traffic, and alleviate congestion in taxicab zones.

The number of franchises granted by the City should be reduced to the two that have historically performed the best in the TCPI. See 2013 TCPI, pg. 2. Taxi! Taxi has consistently invested in making sure its performance meets and exceeds the City’s expectations, and has worked hard to maintain its franchise privilege for another term.

Taxi!Taxi! has new and well-kept fleet of taxicabs, courteous drivers, and efficient dispatchers, all while maintaining its headquarters in the City of Santa Monica (despite the higher cost of operation). This equates to benefits for the City, its residents and its visitors. In addition to ease of service and prompt response times, Taxi! Taxi! also provides specialized amenities, including a lost & found procedure and child/infant seats when needed for a traveling family. As demonstrated by its volume of calls in 2012, Taxi! Taxi! is capable of servicing all of the City’s taxicab needs on its own. Reducing the number of franchises to a maximum of two will allow the City’s needs to be met, account for the presence of TNC drivers, and ensure that taxicab drivers are able to earn sufficient wages to provide for their families.

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code If the City does not reduce the number of franchises and taxicabs in the City, the drivers cannot financially survive or meaningfully compete with Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. Taxi! Taxi! is a small local company that has remained dedicated to serving only the City of Santa Monica, and its operational costs will easily exceed its revenues if the City reduces the number of taxicabs in its fleet. It is simply not economically feasible to reduce the number of taxicabs across the existing five franchises. This is also unnecessary since Taxi! Taxi! alone has been able to fulfill well over 50% of the taxicab demand in the City, and is still capable of servicing many more passengers every day. “Supply and Demand” is NOT a Solution
It has been suggested that the current number of taxicabs should be maintained, leaving it to “supply and demand” to regulate the City’s taxicab needs. This is not a viable option. As the City is aware, the co-op structure of most taxicab franchisees is such that the majority of drivers own their own vehicles. The companies with this co-op business model charge their drivers a fixed lease regardless of whether there is a “demand” or not. This require the owner-operators to either sublease his/her taxicab or to continue working longer and longer hours, while still earning less than a reasonable living wage. These companies have no control over whether the taxicab is off-duty when there is no “demand;” instead, this decision is left entirely to the owner-operator. Taxi! Taxi! owns all of its own vehicles, which alleviates this problem. Additionally, the City already knows that leaving the number of taxicabs to “supply and demand” does not work. This was precisely the situation prior to the institution of the taxicab franchise system, and caused low wages, higher emissions, overcrowding in taxicab zones, and an influx of taxicabs in the City. See Nelson/Nygaard Study.

Conclusion
The only way to account for the number of TNCs currently servicing the City, ensure that drivers can support their families, reduce emissions, and meet the City’s taxicab needs is to (1) reduce the number of taxicab franchises to two (using the TCPI “as a measurement”), and (2) reduce the number of taxicabs to a maximum of 125. The City’s residents and visitors deserve taxicab companies, like Taxi! Taxi!, that operate with the utmost safety and provide the best service. Taxi! Taxi! thanks the City for its consideration, and remains willing to provide additional information if needed.

Sincerely yours,
Taxi! Taxi!
Ayman Radwan, CEO

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber X (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:38 PM)

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber Plus (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:38 PM)

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber Black (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:40 PM)

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber SUV (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:41 PM)

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Lyft at (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 9:05 PM)

10.E.e
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code City Council
Report
City Council Regular Meeting: November 10, 2015
Agenda Item: 7.E
1 of 23
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning and Community Development
Subject: Introduction for First Reading of Ordinances Amending Chapters 6.48, 6.49, and 6.50 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Modifying Provisions of the Vehicle for Hire Regulations, Taxicab Franchise Regulations, and Definition of Pedicab; Ordinances Extending the Taxicab Franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxicab Owners Association, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi!, and Yellow Cab; Adopt a Resolution Establishing Taxicab Franchise Fees, Permit fees, and Taximeter Rates; and, Direct Staff to Research Options that Would Consider Changes to the Taxicab Franchise Program that Would Make Companies More Accountable to Market Forces Rather than City Regulations.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance amending Chapters 6.48, 6.49, and 6.50 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code modifying provisions of the vehicle for hire regulations, taxicab franchise regulations, and definition of pedicab (Attachment K);
2) Introduce for first reading the attached ordinances modifying and extending the taxicab franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxicab Owners Association, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi!, and Yellow Cab (Attachments L, M, N, O, P); 3) Adopt the attached resolution modifying taxicab franchise fees, permit fees, and taximeter rates (Attachment S); and
4) Direct staff to research options for changes to the taxicab franchise program that would make companies more accountable to market forces rather than City regulations.

Executive Summary
On March 1, 2011, the City implemented a new taxicab franchise system in response to concerns with the open licensing system. The current franchises expire on December 31, 2015. Due to the disruptive nature of Transportations Network Companies (TNCs) on the vehicle for hire market, staff is recommending changes to regulations to assist with competing with TNCs, a reallocation of taxicab vehicles to more accurately represent the needs, impacts, and service delivery, and extension of the five existing franchise agreements for two years. Staff is also recommending clarifying the definition

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 2 of 23
of vehicle for hire operations that operate solely in Santa Monica and adding minimum insurance requirements on all non-taxi vehicle for hire operations; and clarification of the definition of pedicabs to include motorized pedicabs.

Background
Based on the recommendations of a 2008 study by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates (see Attachment A) of taxicab operations in Santa Monica, on July 28, 2009, Council adopted an ordinance establishing a franchise-based system for the regulation of taxicabs (see Attachment B), which required the program to be self-supporting through franchise, vehicle permit, and driver permit fees. In compliance with the ordinance requirements, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for citywide taxicab franchises was issued on January 14, 2010.

On November 23, 2010, the Council awarded franchises by ordinance to Bell Cab Company, Inc. (Bell Cab); Independent Taxi Owners’ Association (ITOA); Metro Cab Company, LLC (Metro Cab); TMAT Corp., dba Taxi! Taxi! (Taxi! Taxi!); and L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc., dba Yellow Cab Company (Yellow Cab) (see Attachment C). The ordinances established the terms and conditions of the franchise for each company, which set the effective date for the franchise for January 1, 2011. The terms and conditions were subsequently agreed to by each company. On January 11, 2011, and October 11, 2011, Council adopted amendments to the terms and conditions to increase the fleet size for each franchisee and to adjust the permit year from a fiscal year to a calendar year (see Attachments D and E respectively). On May 22, 2012, Council transferred the taxicab franchise of Metro Cab Company, LLC to All Yellow Taxi dba Metro Cab (Metro Cab) (see Attachment F).

In preparation for the expiration of the Taxicab Franchise agreements on December 31, 2015, staff held a study session with Council at its March 17, 2015 meeting on the taxicab franchise and the impact of Transportations Network Companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, on the transportation market (see Attachment G). Council directed staff to review changes to the regulatory program to assist taxicab companies in light of the arrival of TNCs.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 3 of 23
Discussion
Due to the disruptive nature of TNCs on the vehicle for hire market, staff is recommending changes, as outlined in this report, to the taxicab franchise program.

Staff is also recommending that the franchises for all five companies be extended for two years with some modifications. The two year agreement will allow for an incremental approach to changes to a highly volatile market and will allow more time to evaluate the impacts of the arrival of Expo in 2016.

Staff is also recommending that:

1. Minimum insurance requirements be established for vehicles for hire that operate solely within Santa Monica and that are not regulated by the State of California, and

2. A minor clarification be made to the pedicab definition to include pedicabs with small motors, similar to a motorized bicycle.

Taxicabs - Outreach
In preparation for the March 17, 2015 study session, staff met jointly with all five taxicab franchisees on January 8, 2015. All five companies where encouraged to provide their recommendations to regulatory changes to assist with competing with TNCs. Four of the existing franchisees, Bell Cab Company, Inc., Independent Taxi Owners’ Association, Metro Cab Company, LLC, and L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc., dba Yellow Cab Company (“Taxicab Coalition”)1 submitted a joint letter with detailed recommendations on both regulations and vehicles for staff and Council to consider (see Attachment C of Attachment G of this report). Taxi! Taxi! submitted its own letter with its recommendations on vehicles (see Attachment D of Attachment G of this report). During the study session, Council directed staff to consider options for reducing taxicab regulations to assist companies with competing with TNCs and to consider if regulations were necessary for in-city vehicles for hire.

1 . For simplicity, these four companies will be jointly referred to as the “Taxicab Coalition” in this report.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 4 of 23
On August 17, 2015 staff sent letters to each franchisee outlining a draft summary of the proposed changes to the current taxicab regulatory scheme (see Attachment H).

Franchisees were encouraged to schedule individual meetings with staff to discuss the proposals. The primary area of concern with the draft proposal expressed by each taxicab company in these meetings was the proposed reduction of taxicabs from 300 to 182, and the subsequent allocation of those vehicles between the five companies. The Taxicab Coalition argued for more taxicabs and Taxi! Taxi! recommended fewer taxicab vehicles and fewer franchisees. The taxicab companies were asked to submit written responses to the draft recommendations. As before, the Taxicab Coalition submitted a letter for its four members (see Attachment I) and Taxi! Taxi! submitted a letter on its own to staff and to Mayor Kevin McKeown with a petition from drivers (see Attachment J). The companies outlined their positions on the total number of vehicles that should be authorized and why. With the outline of staff’s recommendations below, alternatives are presented based on the recommendations offered by the Taxicab Coalition and Taxi! Taxi! for Council’s consideration.

Taxicabs - Long Beach Taxicab Regulatory Changes
The Long Beach City Council recently adopted new regulations in response to a request from Yellow Cab Long Beach (now Yellow Long Beach) to address the competitive pressures of TNCs. Long Beach is also currently served by only one taxicab company (i.e. Yellow Cab). According to a May 13, 2015 Los Angeles Times article, Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia said that the new regulations to help taxis stay competitive was not a knock on TNCs, but a way to protect a "community partner" that provides a service for tourists, the elderly and the disabled.

The city removed price floors on rates (which allows Yellow Cab to offer lower rates and coupons) and approved the addition of 24 new taxis to the fleet, bringing the total to 199, even though there was a reported decline of approximately 15% in business with the 175 taxis already licensed. Long Beach also approved new rebranding for Yellow Cab with a new name Yellow Long Beach, a new logo, and a mobile app called Ride Yellow, which appears to be a rebranded version of their app called Curb, which was formerly called TaxiMagic.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 5 of 23
The company claims that the lower rates would increase the demand, however this would not directly assist drivers, unless the company absorbed the cost of the discount.

The addition of more taxicabs provides for an opportunity for the company to lease more vehicles regardless of whether or not taxicab drivers have access to more customers.

Taxicabs - Proposed Amendments
The staff recommendations for taxicabs are outlined later in two sections of this report:
 Regulations - Rules and procedures for how the program is implemented.  Vehicles - The total number of vehicles authorized to operate and the allocation of those vehicles
 Franchise and Permit Fees
 Taximeter Rates
The recommended changes to the regulations are based mostly on the specific recommendations made in a January 27, 2015 letter jointly signed by the “Taxicab Coalition”.

In addition to minor administrative changes to the taxicab programs rules and regulations, such as minor changes to address technological changes in the marketplace, staff proposes the following material changes to the program. These changes are governed by Chapter 6.49 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC), the Taxicab Franchise Agreement, and the Taxicab Rules.

The draft ordinance amending Chapter 6.49 of the SMMC is included as Attachment K and the draft ordinances extending the franchises are attached as follows:
 Bell Cab Company, Inc. - Attachment L
 Independent Taxi Owners’ Association - Attachment M
 All Yellow Taxi (dba Metro Cab) - Attachment N
 TMAT Corp., dba Taxi! Taxi! - Attachment O

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 6 of 23
 L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc (dba Yellow Cab) - Attachment P Because of the rapidly changing vehicle for hire market in California, staff is proposing an incremental approach, instead of a full revamping of the program, to assist taxicab companies in competing with TNCs while still advancing the City’s priorities.

Staff is recommending that the franchises of all five taxicab companies be extended for two years to allow for consideration of further changes in the near future to the program as the market adapts, as well as to allow time for impacts to the local Santa Monica vehicle for hire market from the arrival of Expo. This recommendation is not based on the performance of the companies. Instead staff is recommending that this decision be delayed for two years. The expiration date of the two year franchise agreements would be midnight December 31, 2017. This date is also consistent with when the City of Los Angeles franchise agreements expire.

Regulations
Following are regulatory changes to the program proposed by staff. The taxicab companies have not expressed any significant disagreement with these proposals which are in in most cases based on the recommendations from the taxicab companies.

Later in this report, under the section of vehicles, staff outlines recommendations for the total number of vehicles to be awarded and how these vehicles should be allocated among the five franchisees.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 7 of 23
Proposed Regulatory Change Governed By
SMMC Franchise
Agreement
Rules
1 Establish two types of vehicle permits: Full Time
Permit and a Part Time Permit. A full time vehicle
permit allows a company to dedicate the vehicle to
Santa Monica. The full time vehicle may not be
permitted to also operate in the City of Los Angeles;
however, full time vehicles may be permitted in other
jurisdictions with approval. A part time vehicle
permit requires the vehicle to also be permitted by
the City of Los Angeles. A Part Time vehicle counts
as 50% of a vehicle when calculating Full Time
Equivalency (this is discussed further in the Vehicle
section below).
x X
2 Vehicle Flexibility - Allow each of the franchises to remove from service vehicles based on demand.

This would allow companies to suspend auto
insurance on the vehicle while it is out of service.

This would allow them to reduce costs by not having
to pay for insurance during slower demand periods,
allowing the fleet to “ebb and flow”. The Taxicab
Coalition requested that they be allowed to remove
25% of their fleets from service. Staffs proposal
does not include a limit.

X X
3 Pricing Flexibility - Remove pricing floors. Maximum
rates would still apply. The change would allow
companies to establish promotional pricing including
flat rates, package deals with groups, employers, etc.

This proposal does not change the existing ban on
companies establishing exclusive deals with hotels.

The Taxicab Coalition requested this change. An
additional provision has been added to make it illegal
for a company to charge discounted or flat rates
other than that which has been advertised or agreed
to in advance with the passenger.

X X X

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 8 of 23
Proposed Regulatory Change Governed By
SMMC Franchise
Agreement
Rules
4 Driver Permits - Change the permit period from one
year to a prorated permit that would expire at
midnight on December 31, 2017. The proposed
permit would be prorated so that a driver paid an
amount equal to the number of months remaining in
the franchise agreements. The Taxicab Coalition
requested a two year driver permit. Staff has no
objections to a two year permit, which is consistent
with Los Angeles, however, since the proposal is for
a two year franchise, all driver permits must expire at the end of the franchise period, so providing a
prorated permit fee would accomplish the same goal.

Permit fees are based solely on cost recovery, so the
permit fees would be the same, with standard CPI
increases or changes based on fee studies. Drivers
pay the driver permit fees. If Council should extend
the franchises beyond two years, driver permit
expiration dates would be adjusted accordingly.
x X
5 Transfer rule making authority from the Police
Department to Planning and Community
Development (PCD). All other aspects of the
Taxicab program have been transferred to PCD,
such as permitting and enforcement. Transfer of the
rule making authority would complete this transition.
x
6 LADOT Smartphone App - Allow participation in any
Los Angeles Department of Transportation electronic
hailing Smartphone app and reciprocity program that
may be launched.
x
7 Carpooling - Clarification of “full use of taxicab” to allow for carpooling or ride sharing types of services
by taxicabs.
x
8 Delivery of Goods – Ban taxicab companies and
drivers from providing non-passenger delivery
services (e.g. food, gods, marijuana).
x

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 9 of 23
Other Requests
The Taxicab Coalition requested that the City waive the business license tax fees, claiming that no other city requires a payment of franchise fees and business license tax and that the City’s franchise fees are the highest in the region. The Taxicab Coalition claims that the franchise fee is based on the value that the franchise brings to the franchisee. In their letter dated September 23, 2015, the coalition states “[W]here our business is drastically down due to the encroachment of unregulated businesses who pay no fees to the City, the value of our franchises have dropped considerably.” Because of the incremental approach to the changes that staff is proposing, staff does not recommend a waiver to the business license fee of $250 per vehicle at this time. A waiver could be considered in a future modification to the program with any franchise fee changes.

All five companies have requested that the processing time for permits be reduced.

Most of the processing time is for background checks and driver testing. Staff will review options for driver testing to reduce the amount of time it takes to obtain a permit however, staff is not recommending the elimination of testing at this time. Background checks are dependent on both the California Department of Justice to process fingerprints and the Police Department to complete a thorough background check. It has been requested by the taxicab industry to provide provisional permits until the background check has been completed. Staff does not recommend any changes to the background check requirements or the implementation of provisional driver permits at this time.

Rules
Attached is a redline version of the rules with changes that staff expects to make pending adoption of the attached amendments to Chapters 6.48, 4.49, and 6.50 of the SMMC and the Taxicab Franchise Agreements (see Attachment Q).

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 10 of 23
Vehicles
Taxicab Trips Originating in Santa Monica
Santa Monica taxicabs have experienced a 27% reduction in trips in 2014 when compared to 2013. See Chart A below.

Chart A
2013 Trips 2014 Trips
Percent Change
Trips
2013 to 2014
Market Share
2015
Bell Cab 69,806 48,987 -30% 9%
ITOA 156,279 115,127 -26% 20%
Metro 179,289 129,139 -28% 23%
Taxi! Taxi! 277,293 197,835 -29% 35%
Yellow Cab 93,196 76,325 -18% 13%
All Taxicab Companies 775,863 567,413 -27% 100%
The industry continues to report declines in overall trips in 2015 with a 51% reduction in the first seven months of calendar year 2015 over the first seven months of calendar year 2013. See Chart B below.

Chart B
2013 Trips
Jan-Aug
2015 Trips
Jan-Aug
Percent Change
Trips
2013 to 2015
Jan-Aug
Market Share
2015
Jan-Aug
Bell Cab 46,381 18,315 -61% 7%
ITOA 107,030 52,910 -51% 20%
Metro 118,794 54,947 -54% 21%
Taxi! Taxi! 193,195 93,391 -52% 35%
Yellow Cab 83,203 47,542 -43% 18%
All Taxicab Companies 548,603 267,105 -51% 100%

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 11 of 23
Since flag downs are considered by some companies to be an unreliable reflection of the number of trips a company completes, even when excluding flag down trips, and instead only considering dispatched trips through the companies dispatching systems reported by the companies, there has been a decrease in requests for service calls of 57% from January to August for 2013 to 2015. Chart C below shows a breakdown by company of the decrease in reported dispatched trip, which also demonstrates a clear decline in trips.

Chart C
2013
Dispatched
Trips
Jan-Aug
2015
Dispatched
Trips
Jan-Aug
Percent Change
2013 to 2015
Dispatched Trips
Jan-Aug
Market Share
2015
Jan-Aug
Bell Cab 13,813 6,832 51% 6%
ITOA 15,833 7,058 55% 6%
Metro 53,220 28,292 47% 24%
Taxi! Taxi! 135,210 65,248 52% 55%
Yellow Cab 60,432 11,274 81% 9%
All Taxicab
Companies
278,508 118,704 57% 100%
Although it is not possible to know specifically the cause of the decline, it clearly coincides with the arrival of Transportation Network Companies (TNC); Uber officially launched in Los Angeles on March 8, 2012. It is also unclear if other factors may be contributing to the decline.

Determining the Number of Vehicles
The current number of vehicles authorized to operate is 300. However, the allocation of vehicles did not take into account whether or not a vehicle serves Santa Monica on a full time basis or on a part time basis. The 2008 Nelson/Nygaard Taxicab study recommended 210 Full Time Equivalent vehicles, meaning that a factor should be taken into consideration in establishing the authorized number of vehicles based on whether

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 12 of 23
or not vehicles are operating in Santa Monica on a full time basis or part time basis.

Therefore taxicab companies have full discretion to determine if a vehicle is operating in Santa Monica on a full time or part time basis. The Taxicab Coalition has requested that they maintain this discretion. Staff is recommending that vehicle allocations be awarded specifically for full time or part time vehicles to ensure greater control over the total number of vehicles that impacting local streets.

Staff is recommending that Council authorize no more than 182 full time equivalent taxicabs based on factors outlined in Attachment R which has taken in to account the number of full time leases, dedicated vehicles, and market share of the company. The analysis is based on 2014 trip data, the most recent full year of data available.

Vehicle Allocation by Company
For the purpose of this discussion, Full Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time a vehicle operates in Santa Monica as compared to a full time basis. FTE distinguishes between vehicles that are spending 100% of their time serving Santa Monica and those that are license in both Santa Monica as well as Los Angeles, thereby serving a much broader market. These vehicles are present in Santa Monica far less than vehicles that are only permitted by Santa Monica but would be authorized to operate in Santa Monica during peak periods. For example if a taxicab company is authorized to operate 100 FTE vehicles, the taxicab company could be issued 50 full time vehicle permits and 100 part time vehicle permits for a total of 100 FTE Vehicles. The formula would be:
50 F/T vehicles + (100 P/T vehicles x 50%) = 100 Full Time Equivalent Vehicles The use of 50% as the part time factor is used for convenience since it is difficult to determine how much time a vehicle that is permitted in both Santa Monica and Los Angeles actually operates in Santa Monica. Additionally, many Los Angeles permitted vehicles are also permitted in other jurisdictions, such as Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City, and Los Angeles County. Staff is recommending that companies continue to have the discretion to offer 12-hour or 24-hour leases in any mix it chooses.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 13 of 23
The following chart outlines the proposed Full Time Equivalent vehicles and breakdown by Full Time and Part Time permits. Column E represents the actual number of vehicles that would be permitted to operate.

Company
(A)
Proposed
Full Time
Equivalent
Vehicles
(B)
Proposed
Full Time
Vehicle
Permits
(C)
Proposed
Part Time
Vehicle
Permits*
(D)
Actual
Proposed
Total
Vehicles
Permitted
(E)
Bell Cab 16 2 28 30
ITOA 38 32 12 44
Metro Cab 42 32 20 52
Taxi! Taxi! 62 62 0 62
Yellow Cab 24 2 44 46
Totals 182 130 104 234
*Vehicles in this category are also permitted to operate in the City of Los Angeles for Bell Cab, ITOA, and Yellow Cab. For Metro Cab these vehicles are permitted to operate as Access vehicles outside of Santa Monica.

Based on this proposal, the total change in the number of vehicles would be reduced by 66 or 22%. The actual change to the current allocation is minimal considering the significant drop in vehicle trips and when compared to the original number of FTEs recommended by Nelson/Nygaard in its 2008 study. The key change is that by adjusting the permitting to include specific full time and part time vehicle permits, the allocation will provide more control than the current system over how many vehicles are dedicated to operating only in Santa Monica and is more consistent with the original recommendations by the 2008 Nelson/Nygaard study recommendations.

The following chart provides a comparison of the change in vehicle allocation to the current allocation:

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 14 of 23
Company
Current
Authorized
Vehicles
Current
Full
Time
Proposed
Full Time
Current
Part
Time
Proposed
Part Time
Proposed
Total
Authorized
Vehicles
Change in
Total
Vehicles
from
Current
Allocation
to
Proposed
Allocation
Percent
Change
in Total
Vehicles
Bell Cab 58 12 2 46 28 30 -28 -48%
ITOA 58 47 32 11 12 44 -14 -24%
Metro Cab 63 43 32 20 20 52 -11 -17%
Taxi! Taxi! 63 63 62 0 0 62 -1 -2%
Yellow Cab 58 43 2 15 44 46 -12 -21%
Totals 300 208 130 92 104 234 -66 -22%
Taxicab Coalition - Vehicle Allocation Alternative Proposal As noted earlier in this report, the taxicab companies were encouraged to provide written responses to the proposals outlined by staff in the August 17, 2015 letter sent to each company. The recommended allocation by the Taxicab Coalition was originally to maintain the current level of vehicles with no changes to allocation. In response to the August 17, 2015 letter and subsequent individual meetings with each company, the Taxicab Coalition of four companies have proposed reducing the total number of vehicles to 266 (32 more than staff’s proposal) with a total of 213 FTE vehicles (31 more than staffs proposal). The recommendation also proposes a distribution of vehicles that does not take into account market share, but instead proposes essentially a numerically an equal division of vehicles between companies.

The chart on the next page shows the breakdown recommended by the Taxicab Coalition.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 15 of 23
Taxicab Coalition Recommendation
Company
Proposed
Full Time
Equivalent
Vehicles
Proposed
Full Time
Vehicle
Permits*
Proposed
Part Time
Vehicle
Permits*
Actual
Proposed
Total
Vehicles
Permitted
Bell Cab 33 15 35 50
ITOA 41 32.5 17.5 50
Metro Cab 48 38 20 58
Taxi! Taxi! 58 58 0 58
Yellow Cab 33 15 35 50
Totals 213 158.5 107.5 266
*Fraction resulted due to the proposal containing percentages instead of actual numbers. The final numbers would need to be rounded to reflect a whole number.

Taxi! Taxi! - Vehicle Allocation Alternative Proposal
Taxi! Taxi! made several recommendations in its response to the August 17, 2015 letter and subsequent individual meeting with the company. Taxi! Taxi!’s original request was to reduce the number of franchisees to two and to reduce the total number of vehicles to 125 with no distinction between full time and part time vehicles, which is 57 fewer taxicabs than recommended by staff. The two charts below provide a breakdown of Taxi! Taxi!’s proposals. The first is based on market share and proposes a total of 125 vehicles; the second is based on performance and proposes a total of 121 vehicles.

Both of Taxi! Taxi!’s proposals assume that the companies would determine how many vehicles would be full time or part time; however, only Bell would have the ability to make a vehicle part time. If Council were to choose to adopt Taxi! Taxi!’s proposal to reduce the number of vehicles to 121 and only grant franchises to Bell Cab and Taxi! Taxi, since the total number of vehicles would be very low, staff would have no objections to allowing Bell Cab the flexibility to determine how many vehicles in its fleet were full time vs. part time. For example, even if Bell Cab opted to make all of its vehicles full time, the total number of full time vehicles would still be less then staffs current proposal of 182 full time equivalent vehicles.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 16 of 23
Taxi! Taxi! Proposal – Based on Market Share
Company
Proposed
Full Time
Equivalent
Vehicles
Proposed
Full Time
Vehicle
Permits
Proposed
Part Time
Vehicle
Permits
Actual
Proposed
Total
Vehicles
Permitted
Bell Cab n/a n/a n/a 8
ITOA n/a n/a n/a 8
Metro Cab n/a n/a n/a 26
Taxi! Taxi! n/a n/a n/a 63
Yellow Cab n/a n/a n/a 20
Totals n/a n/a n/a 125
Taxi! Taxi! Proposal – Based on Performance
Company
Proposed
Full Time
Equivalent
Vehicles
Proposed
Full Time
Vehicle
Permits
Proposed
Part Time
Vehicle
Permits
Actual
Proposed
Total
Vehicles
Permitted
Bell Cab n/a n/a n/a 58
ITOA n/a n/a n/a 0
Metro Cab n/a n/a n/a 0
Taxi! Taxi! n/a n/a n/a 63
Yellow Cab n/a n/a n/a 0
Totals n/a n/a n/a 121
Franchise and Permit Fees
Staff is recommending that there be no changes to fees at this time except for vehicle franchise fees for part time vehicles. Staff recommends that full time vehicle franchise fees be consistent with the current franchise vehicle fee and that part time vehicles be reduced to 50% of current vehicle franchise fees. Driver and vehicle permits are based on cost recovery so these fees are not impacted by the two-year driver permit or part

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 17 of 23
time vehicle permit. Any increase in permitting fees would be adjusted in accordance with standard CPI increases.

The fee structure is outlined below and the proposed Resolution is provided as Attachment S.

Franchise Fees:

Annual base franchise fee per taxicab company $5,000
Annual franchise fee per Full Time vehicle in taxicab fleet $1,100 Annual franchise fee per Part Time vehicle in taxicab fleet $ 550 (new) Vehicle Permit Fees:

New vehicle permit fee $119.86
Transfer vehicle permit fee $119.86
Renewal vehicle permit fee $ 54.58
Replacement vehicle permit fee $ 38.53
Vehicle re-inspection fee $ 29.97
Taxicab Driver’s Permit Fees:

New and renewal taxicab driver’s permit application fee $208.69 Taxicab driver’s permit re-examination fee $ 66.35
Taxicab driver’s permit transfer fee $ 66.35
Taxicab driver’s permit replacement fee $ 29.97
Santa Monica Police Department Live Scan fee* $ 67.00
*Live Scan fee established by the Police Department. Additional fees may be required by the Police Department if FBI search is required.

Rates
Staff is recommending that no significant changes be made to the existing rate structure. If Council approves removal of the rate floors by allowing companies to provide discounts beyond just airport flat rates, no changes are needed at this time since the companies will have the flexibility to lower rates as needed. By maintaining the existing maximum rates taxicab companies would not be able to implement price surging, as TNCs such as Uber has. This provides more predictability for passengers.

A passenger may pay less than the existing rates, however, it would be illegal to charge more than the base rates. Additionally, the proposed rate schedule would allow the taxi companies to negotiate different rates (higher or lower than the set rates) with another

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 18 of 23
entity to provide specialty prearranged transportation services for events, such as weddings, employee shuttles or carpooling services.

The current rates are outlined in the chart below and the proposed Resolution is provided as Attachment S.

Mileage Rates
$2.85 flag drop (first 1/9th mile)
$0.30 for each additional 1/9th mile ($2.70 per mile)
$0.30 for each 37 seconds waiting/delay ($29.19 per hour) Airport Flat Rates
North of I-10 to Los Angeles International Airport $35 maximum South of I-10 to Los Angeles International Airport $30 maximum Santa Monica to Bob Hope Airport $75 maximum
Senior and Disabled Discount
Senior citizens (persons age 65 and older) and persons with disabilities (including persons with a Los Angeles County Transit Operators Association Metro Disabled Identity Card) receive a ten percent (10%) discount.

Custom Rates
A taxicab company would be able to establish flat rates to any destination; however, the flat rate may not exceed the maximum that would otherwise be paid at the mileage rate established by this resolution. A taxicab company would also be able to set mileage rates, flat rates or other negotiated rates pursuant to an exclusive arrangement with any business establishment that is for the specific purpose of providing prearranged transportation services for events with multiple participants, employee shuttle services, carpooling services, or other arrangements. These rates must be filed with the City five business days prior to their implementation.

Driver Working Conditions and Income
The current business model used by the taxicab industry in Los Angeles is based on a franchise system with the local jurisdiction where companies lease vehicles to individual drivers. The taxicab company’s revenues are from vehicle leases and other services provided to the drivers, and in some cases advertising on the vehicles. The taxicab companies classify the relationship of the driver with the taxicab company as independent contractor. Lease agreements include language that the driver agrees they are self-employed and that the companies only provide vehicles and other services to

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 19 of 23
them. Taxicab companies also claim that they are not able to exercise “control” over drivers because of the independent contractor status, such as directing drivers where and when to work.

Under the existing system drivers do not have access to statutory benefits including, unemployment insurance, short-term disability insurance, workers compensation, or legal protections against discrimination and a minimum wage.

Staff proposes to evaluate potential changes to the taxicab program that would create a more direct connection between the taxicab companies and fare paying customers, as well as evaluate structures that could potentially allow companies to be more directly responsible to market forces instead of City regulations. By being more directly responsible to the market, it is possible that the City could eliminate the need to set vehicle limits, since companies would be incentivized by market forces to deploy only the number of vehicles that the market would support. This approach has the potential to make taxicab companies more directly responsible for customer service, safety, and working conditions.

Staff recommends that Council direct staff to research options that would consider changes to the taxicab franchise program that would make companies more accountable to market forces rather than City regulations.

In-City Vehicle for Hire Regulations
Staff recommends only minor amendments to address in-city vehicles for hire, including clarifying the definition of in-city vehicles for hire, prohibiting in-city vehicles for hire from providing non-passenger delivery services (e.g. food, goods, etc…), and establishing application approval/denial conditions for in-city vehicles for hire. In-City vehicles for hire operate only within the City of Santa Monica city limits and are not regulated by the CPUC. The draft ordinance amending Chapter 6.48 of the SMMC is included as Attachment K.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 20 of 23
Pedicabs
California Vehicle Code (CVC) 312.5 defines "electric bicycle" as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. It establishes the following three classes of electric bicycles:

1. “Class 1 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.

2. “Class 2 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.

3. A “class 3 electric bicycle,” or “speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.

Class 3 electric bicycles are prohibited by the CVC from operating on bicycles paths or trails. The City has the authority to prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail within its jurisdiction.

Staff recommends including CVC 312.5 defined electric bicycles as pedicabs to ensure that any pedicab operator that utilizes a motor to assist the pedicab driver is subject to all pedicab regulations. Pedicabs are currently prohibited on the beach bike path when operating for hire due to due to the safety issues related to the size of the pedicab in relation to the beach bike path.

The draft ordinance amending Chapter 6.50 of the SMMC is included as Attachment K.

Next Steps for Taxicab Program

1. Implement the administrative changes to the taxicab program.

2. Issue administrative rules no later than December 31, 2015.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 21 of 23

3. Monitor changes to the vehicle for hire market, particularly TNCs.

4. Prepare an analysis of driver working conditions and income as it relates to the current taxicab business model, which relies on lease revenue, as opposed to fares.

5. Return to Council by March 2017 with a status of the program and recommended changes to the taxicab franchise program that would make companies more accountable to market forces rather than City regulations, including the potential of barring Taxicab companies from using independent contractors as drivers.

Alternatives

1. Extend the franchises, maintaining the existing franchise system as it exists with no changes to the regulatory scheme or the number of vehicles authorized. This option would not address concerns related to competition with TNCs or the total number of vehicles authorized.

2. Extend the franchises, maintaining the existing franchise system with minor changes to the regulatory scheme, including allowing companies to remove vehicles from operation at their discretion to allow for flexibility and to remove price floors, with no changes to the number of vehicles. This option would be closer to the approach that Long Beach took addressing in a small way concerns related to competition with TNCs, but would not address the total number of vehicles authorized.

3. Extend the franchises of only two companies, maintaining the existing franchise system with minor changes to the regulatory scheme, including allowing companies to remove vehicles from operation at their discretion to allow for flexibility and to remove price floors, with no changes to the number of vehicles.

This option addresses in a small way concerns related to competition with TNCS and would reduce the total number of vehicles authorized.

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 22 of 23
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific actions are required in the future. Staff anticipates an ongoing revenue reduction in the amount of $144,389 beginning in FY 2015-16 due to the reduction in the number of authorized vehicles and the reduced vehicle franchise fees for part time vehicles, and an additional reduction in the amount of $68,659 in revenue in FY 2016-17 due to the implementation of a two year driver permit. Revenue changes are included in the FY 2015-16 Adopted Budget and the FY 2016-17 Budget Plan.

Prepared By: Salvador Valles, Assistant Director of PCD Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. 2008 Taxicab Study (weblink)
B. Taxicab Franchise Adopted (weblink)
C. Public Hearing & Award of Taxicab Franchises (weblink) D. Increase of Vehicles to 300 (weblink)
E. Amendments and Clarifications (weblink)
F. Assignment of Taxicab Franchise to All Yello Taxi, Inc., dba Metro Cab (weblink) G. March 2015 Study Session (weblink)
H. August 2015 Letter to Taxicab Franchises
I. September 2015 Letter from Taxicab Coalition
J. September 2015 Letters from Taxi Taxi with Addendum and Petition K. Chapters 6 48 6 49 6 50 AMENDMENTS
L. Taxicab Franchise Terms and Conditions BELL CAB AMENDMENTS

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 23 of 23
M. Taxicab Franchise Terms and Conditions ITOA AMENDMENTS N. Taxicab Franchise Terms and Conditions METRO CAB AMENDMENTS O. Taxicab Franchise Terms and Conditions TAXI TAXI AMENDMENTS P. Taxicab Franchise Terms and Conditions YELLOW CAB AMENDMENTS Q. Taxicab Rules Eff 1-1-2016 DRAFT AMENDMENTS
R. Vehicle Allocation Criteria
S. Taxicabs Fee Resolution final
T. Taxi Presentation - Council November 10, 2015

10.E.f
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 14, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Transportation Planning
Subject: Introduction for First Reading of Ordinances Extending the Taxicab Franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxi Owners’ Association, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi! and Yellow Cab for one year; Extending City Taxi Cab Driver permit expiration dates to December 31, 2018; and adopting a resolution setting reduced taxicab driver permit fees
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinances 1) extending the franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxi Owners’ Association, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi!, and Yellow Cab for one year; 2) extending City Taxi Cab Driver permit expiration dates to December 31, 2018; and 3) adopting a resolution setting reduced taxicab driver permit fees.

Executive Summary
The City’s taxicab franchise system, established in March 2011 and renewed from time to time, is currently set to expire on December 31, 2017. The taxi industry has been in decline in recent years concurrent with the rise of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft across the country. California State Assembly Members have been proposing revised taxicab regulations during recent sessions in response to these challenges. The most recent iteration, AB 1069, was signed by the Governor on October 13, 2017. While some AB 1069 regulations will take effect on January 1, 2018, the most impactful changes will not take effect until January 1, 2019. Most notably, by January 1, 2019, taxicab permitting will move from the current patchwork of various local requirements to a countywide system that only requires taxicab drivers and companies to obtain a permit in the jurisdictions that they are “substantially located.” A number of implementation questions remain to be resolved with the new regulations, including the interpretation of the “substantially located” requirement and which agencies will assume the role of countywide taxicab regulation. Staff will work with

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 2 of 9
surrounding jurisdictions and agencies and provide Council with an update on AB 1069 implementation by July 2018.

In the meantime, staff is recommending 1) a one-year extension of the original five-year franchise, which expires on December 31, 2017; and 2) extension of all existing City Taxi Cab Driver Permits until the end of 2018. The extensions, through December 31, 2018, will coincide with the implementation of AB1069. Since approval of AB1069 was unknown at the time of the staff report preparation, staff went through the process of seeking input from the taxicab companies regarding the franchise regulations. Staff received requests from all five taxicab companies to reduce the annual vehicle franchise fee and eliminate the per vehicle business license fee as well as other changes. Given the pending change to the whole regulatory system, Staff recommends the continuation of all regulations for the remaining one-year franchise period but requests a reduction in taxicab driver’s permit application and renewal fees.

Background
On July 28, 2009, the City Council established the taxicab franchise to regulate taxicab transportation services operated within the City, including practices for licensing the taxicab businesses, rates, and mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing. On October 12, 2010, the Council granted franchises to five taxicab companies. The original franchise was granted for five years through December 31, 2015.

On November 24, 2015, Council modified and extended the existing franchise agreements for two years to December 31, 2017 for all five taxicab companies, and maintained the number of authorized vehicles at 300. Council granted taxicab companies the ability to “park” a taxicab, which allows the taxicab company to remove the vehicle from its insurance plan, saving the company money during slower periods.

On October 10, 2016, Taxi! Taxi! submitted a request to reduce the number of taxicab vehicles authorized to operate. Section 5(f) of the taxicab franchise agreement allows a franchisee to request a reduction in the size of their fleet if the “public convenience and necessity no longer requires Grantee to furnish taxicab services with the number of vehicles authorized under this franchise”. On October 31, 2016, the four remaining

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 3 of 9
taxicab companies, Bell Cab, ITOA, Metro Cab, and Yellow Cab (i.e., the “Taxicab Coalition”) submitted requests to reduce the number of vehicles. At its December 6, 2016 meeting, the Council approved the taxicab companies’ request and reduced the number of authorized vehicles from 300 to 199.

Discussion
The taxicab industry has been in a steady decline since the arrival of TNCs, including Uber and Lyft, in 2012. From 2013 through 2016, taxicab trips in Santa Monica have declined 68% and the gross revenue of the franchises has declined 54%. It is estimated by the end of 2017 gross revenue will decline by 64% and total trips by 79% since 2013. The following chart shows the decline in gross revenue and trips for each year compared to 2013:

YEAR GROSS REVENUE DOWN SINCE
2013 YEAR TRIPS DOWN SINCE 2013
2013 $14,875,472 2013 750,555
2014 $11,355,224 24% 2014 571,037 24%
2015 $7,897,532 47% 2015 352,614 54%
2016 $6,858,816 54% 2016 238,648 68%
2017* $5,309,870* 64% 2017* 159,130 79%
A total of 199 vehicles have been authorized by Council, and currently 128 vehicles are dedicated (providing taxicab services only in Santa Monica), of those 9 are ‘parked’ and removed from service, and 41 provide Access Services. When taxicab vehicles provide trips through the County’s Access program, they are not available to respond to calls in the Santa Monica area. In August 2017, 108 (54%) of the 199 authorized vehicles provided trips in Santa Monica.

STATUS OF AUTHORIZED VEHICLES
Company Authorized
Vehicles
Dedicated
Vehicles
Parked
Vehicles
Access
Vehicles
Vehicles
Providing
Service In
August
Bell Cab 43 3 2 0 25

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 4 of 9
ITOA 30 18 0 0 18
Metro Cab 43 43 7 21 10
Taxi Taxi 40 40 0 0 39
Yellow Cab 43 24 0 20 16
TOTAL 199 128 9 41 108
Since 2015, the number of calls for service responded to within 15 minutes for each taxicab company has not changed significantly even with the reduction of authorized vehicles and vehicles removed from service by “parking”. Taxicab franchises with licenses in surrounding cities (Bell, ITOA, and Yellow) continue to have lower response times than Metro Cab and Taxi! Taxi!. The following chart provides a comparison between 2015, 2016, and 2017 year to date through August.

AVERAGE PERCENT OF CALLS
REPONDED TO WITHIN 15

MINUTES
JANUARY – AUGUST 2015,
2016 AND 2017
Company 2015 2016 2017
Bell Cab 89% 87% 87%
ITOA 90% 87% 85%
Metro Cab 94% 91% 90%
Taxi! Taxi! 93% 94% 94%
Yellow Cab 83% 80% 74%
Taxi Regulation
The taxicab industry has been hit hard by the emergence of TNCs (Uber and Lyft) as an alternative in the vehicle for hire transportation market. For the past two years, California Assembly Member Low has introduced bills to attempt to level the playing field between taxicabs and TNCs. In 2015, Low introduced Assembly Bill 650 which attempted to modernize the regulation of taxicab transportation services in order for

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 5 of 9
taxicabs to better compete with all for-hire modes of transportation. Governor Brown vetoed this bill in September 2016.

In February of this year, Low introduced Assembly Bill 1069 to again modernize the regulation of taxicab transportation services and it was signed by Governor Brown in October. AB 1069 is effective January 1, 2018, though the bulk of its impactful changes will not become effective until January 1, 2019. Senate Floor analysis of AB 1069 is provided. (Attachment A)
Beginning January 1, 2018, taxicab companies and taxicab drivers are required to collect and report trip data for 12 months in order to determine where taxicab companies and taxicab drivers are substantially located.

Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 1069 removes the existing broad and relatively unrestricted taxicab permitting authorities from local jurisdiction. It further requires all local jurisdictions to permit and regulate taxicab drivers and companies that are “substantially located” within their jurisdiction. Substantially located is defined as the jurisdiction “where the primary business address of the company or driver is located” or “in which trips originating in that jurisdiction account for the largest share of that company or driver’s total number of trips within [the] county over the past year.” AB1069 further grants permitting authority to certain joint powers authorities and transit agencies. These grants of authorities will need further review by staff.

Even after 2019, AB 1069 still allows local jurisdictions to adopt operating requirements unrelated to permitting or business licensing for taxicab companies and drivers, regardless of whether such companies and drivers are substantially located within their jurisdictions. Such authorized operating requirements include limits on the use of taxi stands or street hails.

Approval of AB1069 was not anticipated given local agency opposition. Staff has begun to look at what the bill means for Santa Monica’s franchise based on current trip making patterns. Preliminarily, it appears that Metro Cab and Taxi! Taxi! would be considered

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 6 of 9
substantially located within Santa Monica. Other taxicab companies, given their regional reach, may not be substantially located in Santa Monica.

Staff will continue to analyze the bill, meet with other jurisdictions over the next several months to determine how this bill will be implemented and its affect on our City’s taxicab service. Staff will provide an update to Council on AB 1069 by July 2018 and return to Council with any necessary changes to the taxicab franchise by November 2018.

Taxicab Franchisees – Requests
Since approval of AB1069 was unknown at the time of the staff report preparation, staff solicited input from the five taxicab companies as part of developing the franchise extension recommendations. The existing franchisees provided two letters, one individual letter from TMAT Corp. (dba Taxi! Taxi!) and one joint letter from Bell Cab Company, Inc., Independent Taxi Owners’ Association, All Yellow Taxi (dba Metro Cab), and LA Taxi Cooperative (dba Yellow Cab Company) (Attachment B). Below is a summary of the primary requests and responses. Given the impending substantial change to taxicab regulation, staff is recommending continuation of current regulations and practices until the new regulations take effect.
 Taxi! Taxi! requests to increase number of authorized vehicles to 63 o Data does not support increasing the number of Taxi! Taxi! authorized vehicles as trips are continuing to decline.
 Cancel Weights and Measures Certificate
o The County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural
Commissioner/Weights and Measures Bureau is responsible for the regulation of taximeters. We require that taxicab vehicles have meters and that the meter be inspected.
 Reduce the annual franchise fee per vehicle and cancel the business license fee;
o Staff recommends maintaining the current regulations and only change the taxicab driver’s permit application fee in addition to the permit

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 7 of 9
renewal fee for the remaining year of the current franchise, until the impact of the new State legislation is fully evaluated. The cost of the taxicab driver’s permit (new or renewal) would be reduced from $112.86 to $48 for 2018.
 Cancel printed waybills and use the digital record
o In November 2015, the Taxicab Rules and Regulations were updated.

Each franchisee shall maintain waybills and make them available for inspection for up to 1 year from the date of the trip.
 No monthly reports, only on demand
o Staff recommends that the franchises continue to submit monthly reports. Timely monthly reports allow staff to analyze data, report findings, make recommendations and ensure administrative efficiency.

Driver Permits
In November 2015, Council approved a two-year pro-rated taxicab driver permit as requested by the taxicab companies. Pro-rating the driver permit fees enables drivers to pay for only the proportion of months remaining in the year at the time of application. All two year permits expire at the end of the current franchise period on December 2017.

Consistent with the proposed one-year Franchise extensions, Staff recommends extending the driver permit expiration date to the end of 2018. Staff also recommends that taxicab driver’s new and renewal permit application fees be reduced to $48 and prorated monthly based on the number of calendar months remaining until the permit expires in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.49.070(e). Staff believes that this reduction is necessary in light of the heavy competition that City permitted taxi drivers face from Transportation Network Company drivers.

Next Steps for Taxicab Program

1. Work with county jurisdictions on the implementation strategy for AB1069

2. Provide Council with an update regarding implementation of AB1069 before July 2018, and return to Council with any necessary changes to the taxicab franchise program by or before to November 2018.

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 8 of 9
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff anticipates revenues to decrease by approximately $16,410 in Taxi Driver Permit Fees due to the proposed reduction in permit fees. Staff will include consideration of budget impact with updates on the implementation of AB1069 during the FY 2018-19 Exception Based Budget.

Attachments:

A. Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1069
B. Franchisee Requests
C. Bell Cab Ordinance
D. Independent Taxi Ordinance
E. Metro Cab Ordinance
F. Taxi! Taxi! Ordinance
G. Yellow Cab Ordinance
H. Ordinance Modifying SMMC Chapter 6.49
I. Fee Resolution
Prepared By: Cheryl Shavers, Senior Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Senate Floor Analysis AB 1069
B. Franchisee Requests
C. Bell Cab Ordinance
D. ITOA Ordinance
E. Metro Cab Ordinance
F. Taxi Taxi Ordinance
G. Yellow Cab Ordinance
H. Taxi Permit Ordinance
I. Taxi Fee Resolution

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 9 of
9 J. Powerpoint Presentation

10.E.g
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 13, 2018
Agenda Item: 7.E
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Transportation Planning
Subject: Introduction for First Reading of Ordinance amending and extending a taxicab franchise granted to TMAT Corp., dba Taxi! Taxi!
Recommended Action
Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance amending and extending the taxicab franchise of TMAT Corp., dba Taxi! Taxi!
Executive Summary
Traditional taxi service and the regulations that govern the industry have been dramatically challenged by the emergence of multiple competitors and changing consumer choices. Now, as a result of recent changes in State law related to taxi transportation services, the City updated its local taxicab franchise ordinance. State law allows a jurisdiction to regulate taxicab companies that meet the state definition of being “substantially located” in that jurisdiction. Taxi! Taxi! is currently the only taxicab company that meets this requirement. Staff is recommending that Council modify and extend Taxi! Taxi!’s current franchise for five years to December 31, 2023. This does not preclude other companies from seeking a local franchise if they meet the new standards.

Background
Since the taxicab franchise was established by City Council in June 2009, several actions regarding the taxicab franchise have been taken given the dramatic changes affecting the taxi industry. In November 2010, Council granted taxicab franchises to Bell Cab, Independent Taxi, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi! and Yellow Cab for five years.

Subsequently, Council granted a 2-year extension in 2015 and a 1-year extension in 2017 to all five taxicab companies. Currently, there are only four companies providing taxicab transportation services in Santa Monica due to Metro Cab forfeiting their

10.E.h
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 2 of 5
franchise in January of this year.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
June 30, 2009 Introduction and first reading adding Chapter 6.49 to establish taxicab franchises
November 10, 2010 Introduction and first reading of five ordinances of the City of Santa Monica granting a taxicab franchise to Bell Cab, Metro Cab, Independent Taxi, Taxi! Taxi! and Yellow Cab
November 10, 2015 Introduction and first reading of Ordinances extending the taxicab franchise of Bell Cab, Independent Taxi, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi! and Yellow Cab
November 14, 2017 Introduction for first reading of Ordinances extending taxicab franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxi, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi! and Yellow Cab
At its last meeting, the City Council authorized an ordinance amending Chapter 6.49 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code modifying provisions of the taxicab franchise regulations in response to State law.

Discussion
The Municipal Code allows the City to grant nonexclusive franchises for the operation of taxicab services within the City. Newly updated State law substantially limits a city’s regulatory and permitting authority in order to reduce the regulatory burden on companies operating in multiple local jurisdictions. Most local regulatory and permitting requirements now may only apply to those taxicab companies that are substantially located in the jurisdiction. Substantially located is defined by State law as: a taxicab company that has a primary business address within the jurisdiction or the total number of prearranged and non-prearranged trips that originate within that jurisdiction account for the largest share of the taxicab company’s total number of trips within the county within the past year. State law continues to allow companies permitted in Los Angeles

10.E.h
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 3 of 5
County to service prearranged trips.

Currently, City Franchisees Bell Cab Company, Independent Cab Company, and Yellow Cab Company are not substantially located within Santa Monica and as such, their franchises agreements will terminate effective January 1, 2019. These companies are not substantially located due to their primary business locations and the largest share of their trips are in other jurisdictions. Bell Cab Company’s offices are located in the city of Hawthorne. With a fleet of 320 taxicabs, Bell Cab provides trips in the cities of El Segundo, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, West Hollywood and Los Angeles. Independent Cab Company’s offices are located in Los Angeles. With their fleet of over 400 vehicles, their service area encompasses cities from San Pedro to Granada Hills and Los Feliz to Malibu, including Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood. Yellow Cab Company’s offices are located in Gardena. Their service area includes Bel-Air, Brentwood, Calabasas, Century City, Hollywood, Inglewood, Pacific Palisades, Century City, San Fernando, and Los Angeles.

Taxi! Taxi! is currently substantially located in Santa Monica and as such, they are the only franchisee that continues to qualify for a franchise with the City. In order to maintain its Taxicab Franchise with the City, Taxi! Taxi! must also provide documentation, which must be maintained throughout the term of the franchise, of the following as outlined in the Municipal Code:

1. Taxicab company is substantially located in the City;

2. Established fares, fees, or rates to be charged to customer;

3. Participation in the pull-notice program (regularly check the driving records of all taxicab drivers);

4. Financial responsibility;

5. A safety and disabled access education and training program;

6. Motor vehicles to be used for taxicab transportation services are in safe operating condition and have passed inspection by the City;

7. Address of an office or terminal where all documents pertaining to taxicab transportation services may be inspected by the City; and

10.E.h
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 4 of 5

8. Provision of a taxicab driver fingerprint-based criminal history check and mandatory drug and alcohol testing program.

All of these requirements, with the exception of being substantially located, are part of the current terms and conditions of Taxi! Taxi!’s franchise ordinance and are monitored regularly by staff. The major modification to Taxi! Taxi!’s franchise ordinance relates to the number of vehicles in their taxicab fleet. In the past, City Council authorized the number of vehicles required in a taxicab company’s fleet. Now, Taxi! Taxi! will be responsible for determining the number of vehicles in their fleet giving them the flexibility to modify the number of taxicabs with demand for service.

Taxicab Franchise Fees
Table 1 summarizes the current fees that would be paid by Taxi! Taxi! based on the current number of permitted vehicles and drivers. As the only franchise holder that will be able to continue operating in the City on both a non-prearranged basis (i.e., taxi stands and street hails) and prearranged basis, it is projected that Taxi! Taxi! may need additional vehicles to meet demand. Table 1 includes a projection of potential fees with the capacity of drivers and vehicles anticipated to be needed to provide efficient taxicab service.

Table 1. Taxicab Franchise Fees
Fee Quantity
(current)
Total
(current)
Quantity
(projected)
Total
(projected)
Franchise Fee $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000
Vehicle Fee $452 39 $17,628 50 $22,600
Renew Vehicle Fee $61.62 39 $2,403 50 $3,081
Driver Permit
Renewal Fee
$48 49 $2,352 70 $3,360
TOTAL REVENUE $27,383 $34,041
The current and projected revenue would not recover the full cost of administering the taxi program. Just one taxicab company will be subject to the fees, resulting in substantially reduced revenues. While program administration will be reduced, reductions are not strictly proportional to the number of companies or vehicles because there is a baseline administration for the program overall. However, increasing fees to fully recover costs is not recommended at this time. Taxicab services continue to meet

10.E.h
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 5 of 5
the needs of specific users, taxicab revenue has been on the decline for the past six years and the future of the taxicab industry is still uncertain even with new state regulations.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff anticipates revenues to decrease by approximately $79,860 due to the reduction in the number of permitted taxicab companies allowed to operate in Santa Monica.

Revenues will be adjusted during FY 2018-19 Mid - Year Review.

Prepared By: Cheryl Shavers, Senior Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Ordinance - PCD - Taxicab - Taxi Taxi Franchise - First Reading - 11132018 B. Ordinance to Establish Franchise System of Taxicab Operations June 30, 2009 (Web Link)
C. Award of Taxicab Franchises November 2010 (Web Link) D. First Reading Extending Taxicab Franchises November 10, 2015 E. First Reading Extending Taxicab Franchises November 14, 2017 F. Modification to Taxicab Franchise October 23, 2018
G. Powerpoint Presentation

10.E.h
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 28, 2020
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Transportation Demand Management, Preferential Parking, Pedicabs and Bikeshare Recommended Action
Staff recommends that, to reflect recent operational changes effectuated by the budget and staffing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council:
(1) introduce for first reading the attached ordinance amending Chapter 3.08 Preferential Parking Zones, Chapter 3.20 Bikeshare, Chapter 6.50 Pedicabs, and Chapter 9.53 Transportation Demand Management; and,
(2) give direction to transition the Taxicab Franchise-based system to a permitbased system.

Summary
Changes to the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) and transportation procedures are necessary to align with restructuring of City services adopted by the Council to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and its long-term economic impacts. Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance to implement the most time-sensitive changes in the areas of Employer Trip Reduction, Preferential Parking, Pedicabs and Bikeshare programs, as follows:
• SMMC Chapter 9.53—Transportation Demand Management: suspend requirements, including the Emissions Reduction and Worksite Transportation plans, for employers of 49 people or fewer; suspend City rideshare program; and reduce Transportation Management Organization services; • SMMC Chapter 6.50—Pedicabs: eliminate the requirement for a local pedicab driver permit and operator permit; retain existing requirements for a business license, insurance, inspection decal, and pedicab driver and carriage requirements, and update SMMC to remain in compliance with State law;

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 2 of 9
• SMMC Chapter 3.08—Preferential Parking Zones: suspend designation of new or amended preferential parking zones for a period of 4 years; continue to implement pre-approved zones and issue and renew permits in existing zones; • SMMC Chapter 3.20—Bikeshare: enable a commercial operator to run the City’s public bike share system in the public-right-of-way.

Staff also seeks direction on pursuing changes to SMMC Chapter 6.49—Taxicabs to transition the current franchise-based system to a permit-based system and pursue regional permitting options.

Background
On May 5, 2020, Council considered citywide restructuring necessitated by the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. This included reconsideration of staffing, program funding, and contractual obligations in order to address the projected budget shortfall. On June 9, 2020, Council considered a draft budget proposal that identified budget impacts on staff activities and services. On June 23, 2020, Council approved a citywide budget that established FY20/21 departmental budgets and finalized staffing and resource changes. The Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) includes several transportation-related provisions that require changes to align with the adopted restructuring.

Discussion
On June 9, 2020, Council received details of how City services and programs are being restructured to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and its long-term economic impact.

Citywide changes included operational, maintenance and permitting functions that eliminated internal functional capacity for street striping and signs, engineering, rideshare, neighborhood traffic calming and grant reporting due to the loss of 16 staff dedicated to these efforts. Some changes identified in the transportation services and programs require updates to relevant SMMC sections as identified in this report.

Redline changes to the code sections are provided in Attachment A, the proposed ordinance.

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 3 of 9

1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Changes to SMMC Chapter 9.53—Transportation Demand Management, internal rideshare program, and Transportation Management Organization services.

Santa Monica established its Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) in 1993, with the goals of proactively reducing congestion, reducing automobile dependence, improving air quality and enhancing transportation choices. It is modeled closely after Rule 2202 administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The TDM Ordinance requires employers of a certain size to submit either a Worksite Transportation Plan or an Emission Reduction Plan. Contents of a Worksite Transportation Plan include estimations of transportation mode choices for staff, on-site information requirements, and a signed letter from management demonstrating commitment to reducing drive alone trips to and from the worksite. The Emission Reduction Plan, more robust in nature, requires an employer to survey employees about how they arrived and departed work over a 5-day period, calculate Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR), and reach a designated target AVR based on worksite location. Employers completing an Emission Reduction Plan who do not reach their AVR target either create a plan describing how over the course of the next year they will reduce the number of drive alone trips to the worksite or purchase mobile source emission reduction credits from a verified vendor. In past years, staff supported businesses through this program with annual commuter resources and non-auto commuting guidance, facilitating collaboration among businesses for carpool, vanpool and parking, and more recently some problem-solving for commuter and customer access needs following COVID-19.

City restructuring has impacted the ability to continue regulating this many employers and providing these additional support resources. In 2016, Santa Monica amended the TDM Ordinance by increasing AVR targets citywide and increasing the applicability of the greater requirements of the Emission Reduction Plan to business of 30 employees or more (instead of 50+). Staff is proposing to update SMMC Chapter 9.53 to return to pre-2016 thresholds that apply the ERP requirements only to employers with 50 or more employees. Additionally, staff is proposing to suspend Worksite Transportation Requirements entirely. The proposed updates would suspend these requirements until

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 4 of 9
September 2024 or until restoration of program resources. The changes do not affect procedures for employers with 50 or more employees or developers.

As an employer, the City is subject to employee trip reduction requirements from AQMD, and as a facilities builder (such as City Hall East) is subject to local TDM requirements for developers. Restructuring reduces the capacity of our internal programs and includes the suspension of the City’s internal employee trip reduction program (in compliance with any requirements imposed by labor group MOUs) including incentives for transit, vanpool, carpool, etc. until resources are available. Additionally, restructuring resulted in a reduction of the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) contract from $250,000 to $195,000 for FY20/21, with half of the remaining contract funded by development agreement contributions. The TMO supports medium and large employers through the provision of transportation solutions, encouraging green commuting and teleworking, and improving worksite access.

2. Pedicabs
Changes to SMMC Chapter 6.50—Pedicabs, which eliminate the requirement for a local pedicab driver permit and operator permit. The changes retain requirements for a business license, insurance, inspection decal, and pedicab driver and carriage requirements in compliance with State law.

Santa Monica adopted pedicab regulations in 2013 which were informed by a year-long pilot program in 1998. Current SMMC regulations require a pedicab driver permit, operator permit, pedicab inspection decal, business license, and outline operating requirements such as minimum driver age, driver’s license, pedicab cleanliness and safe operations. Detailed Administrative Regulations were issued in 2013 to accompany Section 6.50. Local rules also require each driver to successfully complete a pedicab driver class. In 2015, the State established California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21215 regulating the safe operation of pedicabs and establishing insurance, annual incident reporting, routing and loading/unloading requirements.

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 5 of 9
City restructuring has impacted the ability to continue the local permitting of drivers and operators. CVC 21215 has filled the prior gap in safety provisions and operating expectations, but still requires local agencies to inspect pedicabs annually. Staff is proposing to update the SMMC to retain language regarding pedicab vehicle equipment standards and driver qualifications, update to align with State regulations, and to continue requiring annual inspections for a fee. The proposed update would eliminate the requirement for local permitting and classes until there is a restoration of resources for this program.

The Business License Unit would continue business license processing and insurance verification, pedicab rules would be enforced by Code Enforcement staff, and “rules of the road” would be enforced by the Police Department as they do today.

3. Taxicabs
Direction to pursue changes to SMMC Chapter 6.49—Taxicabs to transition the current Franchise program to a permit program and seek regional permitting options.

Santa Monica has the authority to regulate for-hire vehicles within the city. In June 2009, Council adopted an ordinance establishing a franchise-based system for the regulation of taxicabs. The franchise was initially established to address an oversupply of taxis in the market and operating standards. In November 2010, Council approved franchise agreements with five companies, which operated with extensions for approximately eight years. In 2018, Council approved simplified taxicab permitting in compliance with California State law (AB1069) and approved a franchise with one company that is substantially located in Santa Monica: TMAT Corp., dba. Taxi! Taxi!.

AB1069 was passed in response to the market challenges created by Transportation Network Companies (TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft), and reduced local regulation to those taxicab companies which are “substantially located” in the jurisdiction. AB1069 also enables a regional or other agency to perform the permitting function on behalf of local agencies. Staff has been in regular communication with cities throughout the region to explore regional permitting function and best practices for local regulation.

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 6 of 9
Some cities are transitioning their franchise systems to permit systems including the City of Los Angeles. Franchise systems are time consuming to create, and once created are closed to new providers and are difficult to update. The permit system would allow for more flexibility and openness to new customer services, while still enabling requirements for accessibility, fare maximums and other core benefits of the franchise system. A permit system does eliminate a franchise holder’s right to a market area, but this exclusivity was already undone by recent state law that allowed any company to serve a “pre-arranged” trip in the city. Once Los Angeles’ permitting system is operational, they may be able to facilitate permitting on our behalf through a Memorandum of Understanding or other agreement.

In light of Santa Monica’s restructuring that resulted in the elimination of staff resources for this program, and the changing market dynamics of taxicab services which has eliminated the concern regarding oversupply, staff recommends that Santa Monica move toward a regional permitting solution, and initiate those steps in coordination with the local franchise company. The current franchise agreement with Taxi! Taxi! has a termination date of December 31, 2023 or earlier at the discretion of the City. A regional permit system does not yet exist, and as one becomes available staff would pursue it in coordination with Taxi! Taxi! This does not preclude the City from establishing a local permitting solution for taxicabs and similar transportation providers with a future restoration.

4. Residential Preferential Parking Program
Changes to SMMC Chapter 3.08—Preferential Parking Zones to suspend designation of new or amended preferential parking zones for a period of four years, or until restoration of staff resources. These changes do not affect the ability to obtain and renew permits in existing zones or the implementation of pre-approved zones.

Currently, the City’s residential streets are largely blanketed by residential preferential parking zones that are already implemented or pre-approved. City staff answer hundreds of calls and emails each year regarding changes to preferential parking, collect parking occupancy data, assist with resident notifications, host community

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 7 of 9
meetings, and prepare analyses to support amendments to the preferential parking program. Restructuring has eliminated staff resources to process changes to the preferential parking program, requiring the suspension of new or amended residential preferential parking zones for an estimated period of four years (until September 2024) or until restoration of the program. Zones that have been pre-approved by Council and in which residents are able to independently collect the required signatures will continue to be implemented during this period. Suspend interdepartmental coordination toward implementation of the unbundled parking Section 9.28.110.A.1 which will result in the continued ability of residents of new mixed-use projects in commercial zones to have access to preferential parking district permits.

This change would be incorporated into SMMC 3.08.080:

3.08.080 – Suspension on the designation of new or amendment of existing zones. No new zones will be designated, nor any existing zones amended, during the period of September 24, 2020 through September 24, 2024. Zones that have been preapproved will continue to be implemented during this period, and qualified petitions received by September 24, 2020 will be processed.

Applications received before the effective date of the ordinance amendment would also continue to be processed including:
• Petitions to reduce existing restrictions on Hill Street between 21st and 23rd streets and 25th Street between Idaho and Washington avenues • Petitions to amend existing regulations from blocks in the vicinity of Harvard Street and Wilshire Boulevard, including but not limited to: Harvard Street between Washington and Arizona avenues and Princeton Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue
• Application for California Coastal Commission approval of the expansion of Zone F, which Council approved on February 25, 2020

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 8 of 9

5. Bikeshare
Changes to SMMC Chapter 3.20 which enables public bike share other than the City’s designated operator.

SMMC Chapter 3.20 was adopted just prior to the introduction of the City’s Breeze bike share system in 2015. This section created enabling language for a public bike share system operated by the City to function in the public right-of-way. As part of direction to continue piloting shared mobility services, Council directed staff to investigate options for public bike share that could deliver the affordability, reliability, equity and outreach elements of the Breeze program but be operated by a private commercial entity. Staff recently released a request for information regarding the potential for a private operator to achieve these public outcomes. This minor update to Chapter 3.20 would enable a private commercial entity to operate a public bike share system in the public right-ofway, that meets the aforementioned criteria, should an operator be identified in the future.

Next Steps
Upon first reading, the amended ordinance will return to Council for a second reading/adoption and take effect 30 days after adoption. Affected businesses will be notified of the reduced or adjusted regulations as their permits and approvals come up for renewal. If directed to pursue a taxicab permit-based system, staff will work with the City Attorney’s office and regional agencies to define process, procedures, and timeline.

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 9 of 9
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. The financial impacts were previously discussed during the May 5, May 26, and June 23, 2020 Council budget sessions and included in the FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget.

Prepared by: Francie Stefan, Assistant Director/Chief Mobility Officer Attachments
A. Ordinance amending SMMC Chapters 3.08 Preferential Parking, 3.20 Bikeshare,

6.50 Pedicabs, and 9.53 Transportation Demand Management Prepared By: Francie Stefan, Assistant Director/Chief Mobility Officer Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Proposed Ordinance

10.E.i
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 1 City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CHAPTER 6.49 TO TRANSITION TAXICAB

REGULATIONS FROM A FRANCHISE-BASED SYSTEM TO A PERMIT-BASED SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica’s (“City”) taxicab franchise was established by Council in June 2009 due to the influx of the number of taxicabs within the City and complaints pertaining to poor customer service from drivers; confusing and high fees; lack of discounted services for seniors and residents with disabilities; and “bandit” taxis; and WHEREAS, the City’s one existing franchise with a taxicab company expires on December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, with the changing nature of the taxicab industry due in part to the rise in the use of Transportation Network Companies (“TNCs”) for ride-hailing services, staff recommends that the City shift from a franchise program for regulating taxicabs to a system that is permit-based.

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

SECTION 1. Chapter 6.49 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

6.49.010 Definitions.

For the purposes of this Chapter certain words and phrases are defined and certain provisions shall be construed as herein set forth, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 2 (a) Stand. “Stand” means a place designated by the City Engineer for use by any taxicab permitted hereunder by the City while awaiting employment. (ba) Taxicab. “Taxicab” means every automobile and motor-propelled vehicle which is not otherwise licensed by the California Public Utilities Commission, is designed to carry not more than eight persons, excluding the driver, is not otherwise required by State Law to have all trips prearranged, and is used for the transportation of passengers for hire within and without the boundaries of the City, at rates for distance traveled, or for waiting, standby or traffic delay time, or for any combination of such rates, and not operating over a defined route.
(cb) Taxicab Franchisee Company Permittee or Franchisee Permittee. “Taxicab Franchisee company permittee” or “franchisee company permittee” means any person, firm, corporation, or other entity, however organized, including the management and officers thereunder, that is substantially located in and has been granted a franchise permit by the City to provide taxicab transportation services. (dc) Taxicab Driver. “Taxicab driver” means a driver who works for a taxicab franchisee company permittee or is a self-employed, independent taxicab franchisee company permittee, unless the context indicates otherwise. (d) Taximeter. “Taximeter” means any device or technology that automatically calculates a predetermined rate or rates for taxicab services and indicates the charge for the hire of a taxicab, including Internet, web, or other network-based applications.

Taximeters may use global position system metering and also facilitate flat rates or promotional rates.

6.49.020 Authority of designated employees of the Police Department to have access to summary criminal history information.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 3 Police Department employees assigned to or having responsibility for permitting and licensing pursuant to this Chapter shall have the authority to obtain State and local summary criminal history information pursuant to Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11) of the California Penal Code.

6.49.030 Taxicab franchise company permit—Grant application for of franchise permit.
(a) Prior to commencing the operation of taxicab services within the City, a taxicab company shall apply for and obtain a permit in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. may grant nonexclusive franchises in accordance with Article XVI of the Charter of the City for the operation of taxicab services within the City. In order for a taxicab company to be eligible for a franchise grant permit, the taxicab company must provide documentation of the following consistent with applicable State law, this Chapter, and the City’s requirements: (1) the taxicab company is substantially located in the City; (2) established fares, fees, or rates to be charged to the customer; (3) participation in the pull-notice program; (4) financial responsibility; (5) a safety and disabled access education and training program; (6) the motor vehicles to be used for taxicab transportation services are in safe operating condition and have passed inspection by the City; (7) the address of an office or terminal where all documents pertaining to taxicab transportation services may be inspected by the City; and (8) provision of a taxicab driver fingerprint-based criminal history check and a mandatory drug and alcohol testing program.
(b) Taxicabs may be driven pursuant to a contract, agreement, or understanding between the franchisee taxicab company permittee and the driver. Such contract, agreement, or understanding shall not relieve the franchisee taxi company permittee from

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 4 full and complete compliance with the applicable provisions of the Code, rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this Chapter, and the franchise ordinance.

6.49.040 Taxicab franchise company permit —Suspension or revocation. (a) Suspension. The City may, after due notice and an opportunity to be heard, suspend a taxicab franchisee’s company’s operations for one or more days if, in the judgment of the City, a lapse in required insurance or any other violation of the terms and conditions of the franchise ordinance or the provisions of this Chapter; or a violation of any administrative rules and regulations established by the City, orders or directives established by the City, or applicable State law, creates an immediate safety hazard.

Cause for suspension also exists where the holder of a majority interest in the taxicab franchise company or the taxicab franchisee company permittee illegally conducts any type of vehicle for hire or public transportation operation licensed by the City or any other governmental agency, or the franchisee permittee fails to pay any monetary penalties in accordance with this Chapter, the terms and conditions of the franchise, or any resolutions or schedules adopted thereto.
(b) Revocation. The City may, after due notice and an opportunity to be heard, revoke a franchise permit in the event that the franchisee permittee, including its employees, officers, agents and drivers: violates any terms and conditions of the franchise ordinance this Chapter; fails to cure any default within the time required as provided in the franchise ordinance; violates subsection (d) of this Section; violates or commits multiple violations of any provision of this Chapter or any other law, rule, regulation, order or filings of any regulatory body having jurisdiction over the franchisee permittee; or practices, or attempts to practice, any fraud or deceit upon any governmental agency or regulatory body.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 5 (c) The franchisee permittee may appeal any decision from the City to suspend or revoke to a Hearing Examiner for consideration pursuant to this Section. The matter will be set for a hearing and the City shall give the franchisee permittee at least thirty days’ written notice of the time and place of the hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall consider all relevant evidence and testimony and if supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the Hearing Examiner may, in his or her discretion, order the franchisee permittee to take remedial actions or impose any other remedy as authorized by law, including, but not limited to, suspension for a designated period of time; or revocation of the franchise permit. The decision or order of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and binding and subject only to judicial review.
(d) Effect of Suspension or Revocation. Upon suspension or revocation of a franchise permit, all the franchisee’s company permittee’s taxicab operations in the City shall cease until such time as the suspension or revocation is lifted. Upon revocation of any taxicab franchise permit, no franchise permit to operate the same business activity shall be granted to the franchisee permit within the remainder of the term or extension term of the franchise ordinance and for a period of three years thereafter.

6.49.050 Taxicab franchise company permit —Driver’s permit. (a) Application. In order to obtain a taxicab driver’s permit, each person shall file with the City, upon forms supplied by the City, a completed verified application including the following information and documentation:
(1) Name, address, and age of applicant;
(2) Convictions, if any, in any court of law;
(3) Name, address, and certification of the taxicab franchisee company permittee by whom the applicant is to be employed as a taxicab driver in the City;

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 6 (4) Proof of a valid California driver’s license;
(5) A signed agreement to submit to a background investigation and fingerprinting via LiveScan capture by the Police Department;
(6) Original test results from a certified laboratory or testing agency, submitted simultaneously with the applicant’s verified application, proving that the applicant has tested negative for drugs and alcohol as provided by Section 53075.5(b)(3) of the California Government Code; and
(7) Such further information as the City may require, as established by the rules and regulations.
(b) Taxicab Driver’s Permit Applicant Investigation. The Police Department shall investigate each applicant for a taxicab driver’s permit and shall approve the application or state its reason for disapproval. The City may disapprove any applicant who has a record of criminal conduct or other behavior involving any of the following:
(1) Moral turpitude;
(2) Violence toward persons or property;
(3) Physical or mental disease which could make the applicant a danger to the safety of others;
(4) Illegal sexual conduct involving another nonconsenting person; (5) Negligent or reckless driving;
(6) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; (7) Three or more moving violations under the California Vehicle Code within the 12-month period preceding the date of the application;
(8) Existing suspension or revocation of a taxicab driver’s permit in any other jurisdiction as of the date of the application;

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 7 (9) Conviction of operating a taxicab without a valid taxicab driver’s permit or taxicab vehicle permit within the three-year period preceding the date of the application; or
(10) Acts showing the applicant to be otherwise incompetent or not fit to drive a taxicab.
(c) Taxicab Driver’s Permit Issuance. Based on the application, investigation and compliance with all requirements of Section 53075.5(b)(3) of the California Government Code, the City shall approve or deny the taxicab driver’s permit. No taxicab driver’s permit shall be issued if the applicant is under the age of eighteen years, if any false statement appears in the application, or if the application is otherwise incomplete. Upon approval of an application and receipt by the City of the taxicab driver’s permit fee, the City shall issue a taxicab driver’s permit to the applicant. The taxicab driver’s permit shall bear the name and photograph of the applicant, date of expiration of the taxicab driver’s permit, and name of the taxicab franchisee company permittee for which the driver is authorized to drive a taxicab.
(d) Taxicab Driver’s Permit Renewal. A taxicab driver’s permit which has not been revoked, suspended, or terminated may be renewed annually by paying the annual taxicab driver’s permit fee and by filing with the City a verification that the driver is in compliance with the provisions of this Section and test results from a certified laboratory or testing agency proving that the driver has tested negative for drugs and alcohol as provided by Section 53075.5(b)(3) of the California Government Code and U.S.

Department of Transportation program guidelines set forth in 49 CFR Parts 40, 653, and 654, and any other applicable regulations.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 8 (e) Effect of Termination of Employment. The taxicab driver’s permit shall become void upon termination of employment, at which time the taxicab franchisee company permittee shall immediately give the City written notice of the termination and the terminated driver shall immediately return his or her their taxicab driver’s permit to the City.
(f) Prohibition on Transfers. A taxicab driver’s permit is personal in nature and shall not be transferred to another person. Any purported transfer shall be null and void. (g) Grounds for Suspension and Revocation. Any taxicab driver’s permit and any taxicab vehicle permit may be suspended or revoked, after due notice and an opportunity to be heard, for any of the following reasons:
(1) Arrest or citation for the commission of any crime while driving a taxicab or any crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Violation of any applicable rule or regulation, or Federal, State or local law relating to the operation of taxicabs by a driver, or by an employer in the case of a taxicab vehicle permit;
(3) Use of the taxicab driver’s permit for a purpose different from that for which it was issued;
(4) Suspension or revocation of the driver or franchisee’s taxicab company permittee’s taxicab driver’s permit or taxicab vehicle permit in another jurisdiction; and (5) The existence of any facts, including conviction of a crime that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a taxicab driver, which would have been good cause to deny such taxicab driver’s permit application, regardless of when such facts arose.

6.49.060 Taxicab franchise permit —Fees.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 9 (a) Annual Franchise Taxicab Company Permit Fee. Each taxicab franchisee company permittee shall pay to the City an annual fee, established by resolution of the City Council, to cover the City’s costs of administering taxicab transportation services in the City. Such payment shall be in addition to any other prescribed fees, including but not limited to, business license and permit fees. The franchise taxicab company permit fee shall be due, without set off or deduction, upon grant issuance of the franchise taxicab company permit and payable on each anniversary date thereafter, unless otherwise as specified in the franchise ordinance. Failure to pay the full franchise taxicab company fee when due shall be cause for revocation of the franchise taxicab company permit. (b) Annual Taxicab Vehicle Permit Fee. Each taxicab franchisee company permittee shall be required annually to obtain a taxicab vehicle permit and to pay to the City an annual taxicab vehicle permit fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for each taxicab operating under its franchise taxicab company permit. (c) Annual Taxicab Driver’s Permit Fee. Each taxicab driver shall be required annually to renew his or her taxicab driver’s permit and the franchisee taxicab permittee or driver shall pay to the City an annual taxicab driver’s permit fee, established by resolution of the City Council.
(d) No fee refunds shall be issued to any franchisee taxicab company permittee upon revocation of a franchise, or to any driver upon revocation of a taxicab driver’s permit.

6.49.070 Taxicab franchise company permittee —Signage.

Taxicab franchisees company permittees and taxicab drivers shall ensure that taxicabs display the following signage:

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 10 (a) Two cards not less than two inches by four inches nor more than two and onehalf inches by five inches, in both the front seat and the rear seat in full view of passengers, which state the following in letters and numbers which are clearly legible and in the following format:
(1) On the first card: the name, address and telephone number of the taxicab franchisee which operates the taxicab and all rates to be charged; and (2) On the second card: “COMPLAINTS? Call the City of Santa Monica’s Hotline,” followed by the City’s hotline telephone number.
(b) Every taxicab shall have printed upon it, in lettering and numbering not less than two and one-fourth inches in height and five-sixteenths of an inch wide, the cab number and the name and telephone number of the taxicab franchisee company permittee which operates the taxicab. The telephone number and the cab number shall also be printed in a plainly visible manner upon the rear of such vehicle. (c) Every taxicab may have an electrically lighted identification or vacant sign, or a combination of both, attached to the top of such taxicab, which shall be not more than two and one-half inches high by nine inches in length.
(d) No taxicab shall display any sign other than those authorized in this Chapter.

6.49.080 Taxicab franchise company permit —Identification decal required. (a) Each taxicab operated pursuant to a franchise permit shall be identified as a City of Santa Monica authorized taxicab by a taxicab identification decal issued by the City. No person shall identify any vehicle by means of such taxicab identification decal, or any facsimile thereof, unless authorized to do so by the City in writing. (b) Every taxicab driver and franchisee permittee shall ensure that a taxicab identification decal is displayed in each taxicab at all times. Such decal shall be issued

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 11 and affixed by the City to a specific area on the assigned taxicab as designated by the City.
(c) No taxicab driver or franchisee taxicab company permittee shall operate a taxicab without a current taxicab identification decal for that specific vehicle. (d) No taxicab identification decal issued shall be in any manner transferred or assigned. Any decal that is transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed or stolen shall be automatically revoked.
(e) No applicant may be issued a taxicab identification decal until that applicant has paid all applicable fees and all of his, her or its outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees.

6.49.090 Taximeters and rates.
(a) No taxicab shall be operated within the City unless it is equipped with a taximeter that is approved by the California Division of Measurement Standards and complies with Section 12500.5 of the California Business and Professions Code and with all regulations established pursuant to Section 12107 of the California Business and Professions Code.
(b) Taximeters are subject to inspection at any time by any police officer of the City or any other authorized inspector, including the California Department of Agriculture Commissioner/Weights and Measures. Any vehicle equipped with an inaccurate taximeter is subject to impound until said taximeter shall have been correctly adjusted, inspected, and certified by the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures.
(c) Taximeters shall be placed so that the reading dial displaying the amount to be charged is readily discernible by passengers.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 12 (d) All rates to be charged for transportation by taxicabs pursuant to a franchise permit, including both flat and mileage rates, may not exceed the maximum rates established by resolution of City Council. No franchisee permittee shall charge, collect, demand, receive, or arrange for any compensation for taxicab service in an amount that exceeds said maximum rates.
(e) Each taxicab company and taxicab driver shall disclose all rates to the customer before providing taxicab services.
(f) Except where a flat rate is applicable, it is unlawful for a taxicab driver to do any of the following:
(1) Set the taximeter in operation when such vehicle is not actually hired; (2) Fail to set the taximeter to a nonrecording position at the termination of each and every service or call the attention of the passenger to the amount registered; (3) Fail to activate the taximeter while carrying passengers or under hire; or (4) Activate or operate the taximeter so as to denote a rate of fare exceeding that authorized pursuant to this Chapter or by the permitting governmental agency. (g) No driver of any taxicab upon receiving payment of a fare thereon shall refuse to give a receipt upon the request of any passenger making said payment. (h) It shall be unlawful to charge a discounted or flat rate other than that which has been advertised or agreed to in advance with the passenger. (Added by Ord. No. 2590CCS, adopted 11/13/18)

6.49.100 Intentionally Left Blank Parking of vehicles—Stands. (a) No franchisee or driver shall permit any taxicab to stand while awaiting employment at any place other than a stand designated by the City Traffic Engineer.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 13 (b) No taxicab driver shall leave a vehicle unattended in a stand for a period of time longer than three minutes.
(c) Stands may be occupied at any time, except when standing, stopping or parking at a particular stand is otherwise prohibited by law. (d) Taxicab drivers may not stop in bus zones for purposes of loading or unloading passengers unless there is no other practicable location to safely and expediently load or unload such passengers.
(e) No person shall occupy a stand without a valid taxicab driver’s permit and vehicle permit issued by the City pursuant to a franchise.

6.49.110 Taxicab identification and vehicle operating requirements. (a) No taxicab company shall operate any taxicab without a distinctive and uniform color scheme or identification which designates the taxicab company under which said vehicle is operated.
(b) No taxicab company shall use any color scheme, insignia, name, monogram, logo, or identification that conflicts with or imitates any color scheme, insignia, name, monogram, logo, or identification used by another taxicab company in such a manner as to be misleading or to tend to confuse or defraud the public. (c) Every taxicab company and taxicab driver shall comply with the following operating requirements at all times:
(1) Maintain and keep an accurate and legible record of all passengers carried, including the pickup and drop off points, the date and time carried, the starting and ending mileage of the taxicab for each trip, and the charges authorized and made for each trip;

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 14 (2) Display inside the taxicab and in full view of passengers, a valid taxicab driver’s permit bearing the name and photograph of the taxicab driver and identifying the name of the taxicab company under which such taxicab is operated; (3) Maintain in each taxicab a working two-way communication system with a dispatcher;
(4) Obtain an annual vehicle inspection of each taxicab at a facility certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service or a facility registered with the Bureau of Automotive Repair; and
(5) Permit any police officer of the City or other authorized enforcement officer enforcing this Chapter to inspect any taxicab upon request.

6.49.120 Full use of taxicab.

When a taxicab is engaged the occupant or occupants shall have the exclusive right to the full and free use of the passenger compartment and no owner or driver of said taxicab shall solicit or carry additional passengers therein without soliciting and receiving the consent of the occupant or occupants. Nothing in this provision is intended to restrict any taxicab company from offering carpooling or ride sharing services.

6.49.130 Access to passengers on business establishment premises; exclusive arrangements limited.
(a) No owner, operator, employee or agent of any hotel or any other business establishment shall exclude any permitted taxicab driver operating pursuant to a franchise granted by the City from standing or picking up passengers at any taxicab stand, hack stand, or other location where taxicabs or other vehicles for hire are regularly allowed to stand and pick up passengers on the premises of the hotel or other business establishment.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 15 (b) Each taxicab franchisee company permittee is prohibited from entering into any taxicab service arrangements or agreements for compensation with any hotel, motel, or other business establishments, or any public or private agency or organization in the City for the purpose of obtaining exclusive access to the business’ patrons seeking on demand taxicab services. Each franchisee taxicab company permittee shall ensure that none of its members or taxicab drivers enters into any such taxicab service arrangements or agreements for compensation with any hotel, motel or other business establishments, or any public or private agency or organization in the City. Nothing in this Section prohibits exclusive arrangements with any business establishment for the purpose of providing prearranged transportation services for events with multiple participants, employee shuttle services, carpooling services, or other arrangement approved in advance by the City to the extent consistent with the requirements of this Chapter.

6.49.140 Unauthorized taxicab services prohibited; exception. (a) No person shall knowingly dispatch a vehicle or respond to a request for a “taxi,” “cab” or “taxicab” for pick-up within the City, or pick up passengers within the City for taxicab services, unless the vehicle has a valid taxicab vehicle permit, the driver of such vehicle has a valid taxicab driver’s permit, and the taxicab is operated pursuant to a franchise granted by the City this Chapter.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, a taxicab company or taxicab driver that is lawfully permitted by a governmental agency to operate in Los Angeles County may provide prearranged trips anywhere within the City.
(c) No person who drives or operates a taxicab in the City shall publish, advertise or broadcast in any manner, written or oral, a telephone number, website address, or other identifier, either by itself or connected to a rotary, redirect, or call forwarding system

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 16 for taxicab service, which is the same telephone number, website address, or other identifier, as that for other taxicabs or vehicles for hire. (d) No person who drives or operates a taxicab in the City shall use a name that imitates a name used by another person who drives or operates a taxicab in such a manner as to be misleading or tend to confuse or defraud the public. (e) No person shall advertise or otherwise hold itself out as providing taxicab services within the City, unless such person is operating pursuant to a taxicab franchise company permit granted by the City or is lawfully permitted by a governmental agency to provide prearranged trips in the City.

6.49.150 Rules and regulations.

The Director of Planning and Community Development Transportation or designee is authorized to adopt administrative rules and regulations consistent with this Code and applicable State law necessary to implement this Chapter. and the franchise ordinances.

Such rules and regulations may include, but are not limited to, provisions: governing taxicab service and safety; prescribing limitations, conditions and qualifications of applicants for vehicle permits and driver permits; stipulating the responsibilities of taxicab franchisees company permittees and their drivers; and pertaining to public health, safety, and welfare. Violations of the administrative rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this section shall constitute violations of this Chapter, and shall subject the violator to the penalties set forth in this Chapter.

6.49.160 Penalty for violation.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be guilty of either: (1) an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars for the first violation, two hundred dollars for

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 17 a second violation within one year, and five hundred dollars for a third and subsequent violations within one year; or (2) a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars per violation, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Where the violation is of a continuing nature, each day that the violation continues constitutes a separate and distinct violation.
(b) Any police officer and other persons authorized by the City to enforce this Chapter are authorized under Sections 53075.6 and 53075.61 of the California Government Code, Section 5411.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, Section 21100.4 of the California Vehicle Code and any other applicable State law, to impound and retain any vehicle operating within the City as a taxicab without having any valid permits, and/or a franchise granted issued by the City to operate a taxicab service, in violation of this Chapter.
(c) Every person who operates a taxicab and who knowingly and willfully issues, publishes or affixes, or causes or permits to be issued, published or affixed, any oral or written advertisement, broadcast or holding out to the public or any portion thereof, in any manner whatsoever, that the person operates a taxicab company or an individual taxicab without having any valid permits is guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) Any person who, after due notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6.16, is found to have been operating a taxicab service within the City without any valid permits may in the City’s discretion be required to pay a fine of not less than five thousand dollars for each violation, plus any assessments and interest as authorized by law, as set forth by resolution of the City Council.

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 18 (e) The remedies specified in this Section are cumulative and their specification shall not preclude the use of any other remedy provided by law.

6.49.170 Penalties for violations of rules and regulations.

Any person who violates a rule or regulation adopted pursuant to Section

6.49.020 this Chapter may be subject to an administrative citation pursuant to Chapter

1.09 of this Code. A taxicab company shall be responsible for the violation of a rule or regulation by a taxicab driver operating under that company, and shall be deemed a responsible party within the meaning of Section 1.09.020 of this Code.

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

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

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

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 19 _________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

10.E.j
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.12.2023 (5822 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Council Rules of Order and Procedure Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Permanently adopt the public input pilot, previously extended to December 31, 2023, in order to efficiently implement hybrid public input model approved by Council in the 2023-25 biennial budget; and,

3. Adopt the attached proposed resolution amending the City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure and repealing Resolution No. 11517 (CCS).

Executive Summary
As part of the FY 2023-25 Biennial Budget, Council approved funding for the implementation of a hybrid model for public input at both Council and board and commission meetings, allowing members of the public to provide public comment both in-person and remotely. To more effectively and efficiently implement this model of public input, staff is recommending that Council permanently adopt the public input pilot program it adopted on a limited basis from June 2022 until December 2022 and then extended for the period of one year in January 2023. In addition, staff is recommending the adoption of several additional rules to clarify existing rules and to establish new guidelines.

11.A
Packet Pg. 320
2 of 4
Discussion
Public Input Pilot
Historically, members of the public have been able to provide public input for meetings in-person during the meeting or for those unable to attend in-person, submitted in writing by noon on the day of the meeting. The requirement for social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic saw the need to move public meetings to virtual platforms and tasked staff with finding ways to facilitate remote public input. This shift required the need to adjust staff schedules to manage public input throughout the meeting. In addition, Council directed staff to find a more efficient way to hold public input that resulted in the adoption of the current pilot program which consolidates public input to be heard at the beginning of the meeting with the exception of public hearings where public input continues to be heard when the item is called. Once COVID-19 restrictions began to be lifted, Council returned to in-person meetings and discontinued remote public input. However, the Council continued to permit boards and commissions to meet remotely under SB 361, until it was sunset by Governor Newsom on February 28, 2023, at which point all public meetings, including public input, returned to in-person following the Brown Act. After hearing from the public on the benefits of continuing remote public input, particularly for those with disabilities, caregiver responsibilities for family members, work schedules that make it difficult to attend meetings in person, and in the spirit of the City’s implementation of policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, Council approved the financial resources necessary to re-implement remote public input, including technological upgrades for meeting rooms and increased staffing, with the adoption of the FY 2023-2025 Biennial Budget. As such, staff is recommending that Council permanently adopt the public input pilot in order to minimize the need to make major adjustments to staff schedules and to curtail overtime costs for staff members tasked with facilitating the process.

Amending Council Rules
In conjunction with the City Manager and City Attorney, the City Clerk’s office reviewed the Council Rules and identified areas where rules are ambiguous and require

11.A
Packet Pg. 321
3 of 4
clarification or where rules have not been established. The proposed amendments to the Council Rules largely clarify existing practices, but for a few rules, additional specificity and ease of implementation is provided. The amendments will help with the preparation and conduct of Council meetings.

The proposed amendments to the Council Rules, attached as Exhibit A, include the following:

1. Changing the start time for regular Council meetings from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

2. Re-ordering agenda items to promote efficiency for the Council and convenience for the public. This will eliminate the need to do agenda management to move Special Agenda Items, particularly for items such as commendations, proclamations, and other matters in which special guests are invited, to the beginning of the meeting.

3. Establishing a rule that stipulates who is allowed to attend Councilmember briefings and agenda preparation meetings.

4. Clarifying when it is appropriate for Councilmembers to read statements into the record.

5. Clarifying when settlement direction given in closed session is reportable in open session.

6. Designating who may direct a closed session item be placed on the agenda.

7. Allowing the City Manager to remove or postpone staff sponsored items from the agenda at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting.

8. Allowing minutes to be approved on the consent calendar.

Environmental Review
This proposed amendments to Council rules is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The amendments represent administrative changes to Council rules and would not result in physical effects. No further environmental review is required.

11.A
Packet Pg. 322
4 of 4
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.

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

A. Council Rules Reso 080323

11.A
Packet Pg. 323
1 City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. ____________(CCS)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA

MONICA AMENDING THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR

THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 11517 (CCS)
WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify and amend some procedural Rules for the preparation for and conduct of Council meetings.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council Rules of Order and Procedure are hereby amended to read as follows:

RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RULE 1. RULES OF ORDER.

These Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all City Council meetings, unless superseded or prohibited by federal, state, or local law. To the extent a matter is not covered by these Rules, the procedures of the City Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules shall be subordinate to all applicable laws and these rules to the extent they are inconsistent. These rules also apply to the Council sitting as or in combination with another body, such as the Housing Authority Board, Successor Agency, or Financing Authority, and to all boards and commissions.

The City Council rules, or any one thereof, may be suspended by a vote of twothirds of the Councilmembers present.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 2 RULE 2. TIME AND PLACE FOR HOLDING REGULAR MEETINGS.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 611 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the City Council establishes the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month as the days for holding regular meetings of the City Council. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular meeting shall commence at 5:306:00 p.m., for the Closed Session. It is the intention of the City Council that all other Agenda public action items shall commence no earlier than 7:00 p.m., following the Closed Session, unless noticed otherwise on the Agenda. If any such Tuesday falls on any day designated by law by the City Council as a day for public feast, Thanksgiving or holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the date of the regular meeting next following said Tuesday at the hour heretofore fixed or at such other day as may be fixed.

The City Council Chamber in City Hall is established as the place for holding the City Council’s regular meetings.

RULE 3. QUORUM AND ACTION
In accordance with Section 614 of the Santa Monica City Charter, 4 Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, or other law or these rules, action shall be taken by a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council, that is, at least 4 votes, unless a higher number is required. However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only 4 Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as 5 Councilmembers are participating.

Whenever any Councilmember questions the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the City Clerk to call the roll, each Councilmember shall

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 3 respond when that Councilmember’s name is called, and the Clerk shall announce the result. Such proceedings shall be without debate, but no Councilmember who is speaking may be interrupted by a question as to the presence of a quorum.

The City Council may also establish standing subcommittees of its members to address designated areas of City business on the Council's behalf and may establish ad hoc committees to formulate reports or recommendations on particular matters. Ad hoc committees must provide quarterly updates to Council, which shall be included on the Agenda by the City Clerk.

RULE 4. MEETINGS TO BE PUBLIC - EXCEPTION FOR CLOSED SESSIONS.

As required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (the “Brown Act”), California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq., all regular, adjourned regular and special meetings of the City Council shall be public, provided, however, the City Council may meet in a Closed Session from which the public is excluded, for those purposes authorized by the Brown Act.

No Councilmember, employee of the City, or any other person present during a Closed Session of the City Council shall disclose to any person the content or substance of any communication that took place during the Closed Session unless the City Council specifically authorizes the disclosure by majority vote or unless the disclosure is required by law.

Any required public announcements following closed session shall be made by the City Attorney immediately upon the Council convening in open session following closed session. Council direction to provide authority to settle a claim or lawsuit shall not be reported out until the settlement is signed and final.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 4 RULE 5. AGENDA.

The City Clerk shall prepare the Agenda under the direction of the City Manager as follows:
(a) The City Manager shall consult with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore in the preparation of the Agenda.
(b) Other than the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney (and/or their designees), Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem, no person shall attend an Agenda preparation meeting without invitation of the City Manager.
(c) The Agenda and all available supporting documents shall be delivered to Councilmembers on the Tuesday preceding the Tuesday City Council meeting to which it pertains or as soon thereafter as possible.
(d) Any Councilmember, in compliance with Rule 6(s), or the City Manager may direct that any open session matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction be placed upon the Agenda. The City Attorney may place items on the Agenda affecting the City Attorney’s Office or closed session. Councilmembers shall submit Councilmember Agenda items as follows: (1) for regular meetings, by noon on Monday, 8 days prior to the Council meeting, to ensure matters will be agendized for the following Tuesday; and (2) for special meetings, by 3:00 p.m. on the day at least 2 days before the day of the special meeting. Subject to Brown Act requirements, items submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the specified day will be agendized for the next regular meeting, unless theCouncilmember has identified an urgency requiring that the matter be added to the current Agenda. Closed session items may also be placed on the Agenda by Councilmembers by either: (1) the Mayor; or (2) a written request (may be by email) by 3 Councilmembers submitted to the City Clerk by noon on Monday, 8 days prior to the

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 5 Council meeting. In any event, the City Attorney shall verify whether the requested closed session is a proper topic for closed session pursuant to the Brown Act before the item is published on an Agenda, and if not, it shall be omitted.

Council items placed on the Agenda may be removed or amended by the sponsor, with the City Manager’s approval, no later than noon on Thursday, 5 days prior to the Council meeting. Staff sponsored items may be removed from the Agenda (or postponed) by the City Manager at any time prior to the start of the applicable Council meeting and shall be announced by the City Clerk following Roll Call.

Any Councilmember requested discussion Agenda item shall be initiated as a “16 item” first to obtain Council direction (see Rule 6(v)).

Councilmember items may only be combined with other items on the Agenda by a vote of the Council. A Councilmember who wishes to combine the Councilmember’s item with another item on the Agenda may direct that the following language be included with the Agenda item: “This item may be considered with Item __.” The City Manager may combine staff items on the Agenda to ensure the public’s business is handled efficiently and conveniently.

Proposed alternatives, other than minor variations, to items or portions of items on the agenda shall be submitted in writing to the City Clerk for distribution no later than noon the day prior to the Council meeting; any alternatives submitted after the deadline may be considered by the Council only by unanimous consent, provided they are Brown Act compliant; otherwise, the amendment along with the main item may be considered at a subsequent meeting pursuant to an approved motion to continue. (e) The City Clerk shall post the Agenda as required by the Brown Act. Copies of the Agenda shall be posted on the windows of the Santa Monica Institute room, located

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 6 at 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica, California 90401. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in the Clerk’s office declarations establishing compliance with the posting requirements.
(f) No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted Agenda unless the item is added to the Agenda in the manner required by the Brown Act. (g) Matters directed to be placed on the Agenda at the direction of Councilmembers shall be listed on the Agenda in the order of receipt by the City Clerk. (h) Written requests to the City Council shall be received and opened by the City Clerk and referred to the City Manager or the Manager’s designee and either shall be transmitted to the appropriate board, commission, or staff member, or shall be placed on the Agenda if City Council consideration is deemed appropriate by the Mayor or City Manager. Written requests being agendized shall be scheduled for City Council consideration at the earliest convenient meeting, taking into consideration the length and content of meeting Agendas. Members of the public submitting written requests shall be advised of how their request is being handled. Councilmembers shall receive copies of those written requests that are not agendized. Agendized communications shall be listed on the Agenda in order of receipt. No communication shall be placed on an Agenda if it contains material that:
(1) Is profane.
(2) Is potentially slanderous or libelous.
(3) Advocates or opposes the candidacy of any person or party for any elective office.
(4) Is primarily an advertisement or promotion or has as a substantial purpose the advancement of any cause the major benefit of which is private and not public.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 7 Members of the public submitting written requests to the City Council are encouraged to limit their submissions to one per meeting. (i) All electronic presentation materials intended for use at a City Council meeting, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by an overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. For clarity, this rule shall not apply to a current member of a board or commission speaking on a matter within the purview of the board or commission on which the member sits.
(j) Any Councilmember or the City Manager may place an item on the Council agenda to present a report from a board or commission that is within the board or commission’s subject matter authority that was duly approved by the board or commission. The request and the written or electronic materials to be distributed or displayed at the meeting must be provided to the City Clerk, the City Manager’s Office, and the sponsoring Department Staff Liaison by 3 p.m. Friday, 11 days before the Council meeting. When heard, the speaker for the board or commission shall be permitted up to 10 minutes to present, unless the Council by majority vote allows for a different time. The Council may question the speaker concerning the report and presentation. The speaker shall have an opportunity to respond to comments by the City Manager and Staff. The City Manager and Staff may also provide information concerning the presentation. The presentation will not be considered an action item, but the City Manager may combine it with an action item on the Agenda, and the Council may provide direction concerning the matters raised in the presentation. Action may be taken on matters raised in the presentation, subject to Brown Act compliance.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 8 (k) Councilmembers planning on being absent from a Council meeting or a portion of a meeting may submit written statements on a topic on the Agenda to the City Clerk at least 36 hours in advance of the beginning of the meeting. The City Clerk shall publish the written statement at least 24 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting, but no City official shall be required to announce or read the statement at the meeting. This procedure shall not apply to quasi-judicial matters, wherein Councilmembers ordinarily shall not communicate about the matter prior to conclusion of a public hearing.

RULE 6. CATEGORIES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The business of the City Council shall be conducted in the order and manner specified below. The order may be changed by a majority vote of those present. The following is the order of business:
(a) Call to Order.
(b) Salute to the Flag.
(c) Roll Call.
(d) City Clerk Agenda announcements and Agenda Procedural motions. (e) General Public Input. Allows members of the public to address the City Council on matters not otherwise on the Agenda that are within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the Agenda. As a result, no formal action may be taken on any matter under this item.
(f) Public Comment for Special Agenda, Closed Session, and Consent Calendar Items Only.
(g) Special Agenda Items. This item includes the City Manager’s Report, proclamations, commendations, introductions of special guests, special meetings,

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 9 appointments to the City Council and presentations and reports by other non-City public entities or legislative bodies. Proclamations, commendations, and introductions of special guests may be scheduled and discussed prior to Closed Session in consideration for the time of the guests.
(h) Closed Session.
(i) Reports and any Additional Public Actions from Closed Session. (j) Councilmember Travel Announcements.
(k) Consent Calendar. The consent calendar shall consist of the approval of minutes of previous meetings and those other items such as contracts and routine resolutions that do not necessitate a separate public hearing and which are determined in the Agenda preparation process to be relatively non-controversial. Ordinances for second reading and adoption may be placed on the consent calendar if all members of the City Council were present when the vote for first reading and introduction took place and this vote was unanimous. The consent calendar shall be considered as one item regardless of the number of matters appearing on it and may be approved by a single vote. The title to the individual consent items need not be read unless a request to do so is made by any Councilmember. Members of the public shall have no more than one opportunity to address the City Council concerning any and all items on the consent calendar. Members of the public shall be heard prior to City Council consideration of the consent calendar. Councilmembers may request to have individual matters removed from the consent calendar so that they may be heard on those matters. All matters remaining on the consent calendar may be approved by a single vote. Any items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the order of their appearance on the Agenda. Removed items may be heard immediately following the consent calendar or

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 10 may be heard after the City Council concludes Closed Session or Study Session.

Councilmembers are encouraged to notify the City Manager by noon the day before the meeting that an item may be pulled for discussion or questions to Staff and request a presentation of an item on the Consent Calendar. When the Clerk calls the Consent Calendar, the Clerk shall identify those items that Councilmembers have indicated they wanted to pull (by noon the day before) and which Councilmembers have made the requests. Only those items shall be pulled for discussion, unless a Councilmember makes an additional request following the Clerk’s announcement. (l) Public Comment on Remaining Agenda Items. Allows members of the public to have the opportunity to speak on items on the Agenda before or during the City Council’s Consideration of the item, except where a public hearing is required by law. (m) Study Session. During Study Sessions staff will present information regarding a complex matter that will be subject to Council deliberation and decisions in the future. No City Council action will be recommended or taken as part of the Study Session, other than to give direction to prepare and return with Agenda items in the future. (n) Continued Items. This item includes agendized items of a previous City Council meeting not considered at such meeting. The City Council may vote by a majority of its members to have a carry-over item placed on a subsequent Agenda as a continued item. If public comment on a continued item was concluded at the initial meeting, it shall not be repeated.
(o) Administrative Proceedings. This item includes proceedings requiring the City Council to make a quasi-judicial decision concerning an individual application or appeal.
(p) Ordinances.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 11 (1) Second Reading and Adoption. No public comment is permitted on second readings.
(2) Introduction and First Reading.
(q) Staff Administrative Items. This category will include policy matters to be considered by the City Council or at joint meetings of the City Council, Parking Authority, Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority and/or Redevelopment Successor Agency.
(r) Public Hearings. This item consists of public hearings required by specific provisions of law. Public comment on a Public Hearing item shall be taken at the time the item is heard.
(s) Reports of Boards and Commissions. Boards and commissions that may present reports under this item and pursuant to rule 5(i) include, but are not limited to, all City boards, commissions, and task forces. Reports may also be provided by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau. Note this subsection provides for the location or timing of these items if placed on the Agenda, not the authority to place items on the Agenda, which is addressed elsewhere in these rules.
(t) Resolutions. A resolution will be considered under this item only if its substance makes extensive public input advisable, or if it should be considered after another item on the Agenda, otherwise the resolution will be considered on the Consent Calendar.
(u) Written Communication. This item allows the City Council to consider issues raised by written submissions from the public.
(v) Councilmember Discussion Items. This category consists of

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 12 Councilmember requested Agenda items to provide policy direction. Action and direction may occur on these items to the extent specified in the Agenda item. Councilmembers should discuss requested Agenda items in advance with the City Manager to assist in developing language on an item. No resolutions or ordinances should be developed or drafted until a majority of the Council gives direction to the City Manager and/or the City Attorney. The City Manager will work with the Councilmember to decide if the item will be placed on the Agenda or address them in other ways. Resolutions for advocacy would be an exception.

RULE 7. PREPARATION OF MINUTES.

The City Clerk shall have exclusive responsibility for preparation of the Minutes, and any directions for corrections in the Minutes shall be made only by majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Minutes of a City Council meeting may be approved on the Consent Calendar without reading if the City Clerk has previously furnished each Councilmember with a copy and unless a reading is ordered by a majority vote of the City Council.

RULE 9. PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all meetings of the City Council.

In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall preside. In the absence of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order and a temporary Presiding Officer shall be elected by the Councilmembers present to serve until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore or until adjournment. (b) Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. As required by Charter section 604, the Mayor shall be selected by the Council. The procedure for selection shall be as

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 13 follows: Beginning in December 2022, the Council shall select the longest continuously serving Councilmember, whether initially elected or appointed, to serve as Mayor for a 1 year term. Each subsequent December the next longest continuously serving Councilmember shall be selected as Mayor for a 1 year term, then rotating each December to select the Mayor in order of the next longest serving Councilmember. If two or more Councilmembers were elected at the same election, the Councilmember receiving the higher number of votes shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. If two or more Councilmembers were initially appointed to serve at the same time, then when they each may first become eligible to be selected as Mayor, a coin flip shall decide who shall be considered as having served longer for purposes of this provision. The Mayor Pro Tempore may be selected by simple majority vote without regard to this provision. This provision shall not be subject to a suspension of the Council Rules, and shall be implemented until duly repealed or amended by the Council.

RULE 10. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRESIDING OFFICER.
(a) Participation. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are imposed upon Councilmembers by these rules, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a Councilmember by reason of acting as the Presiding Officer. (b) Duties. The Presiding Officer shall:
(1) preserve order at all meetings of the City Council; (2) state (or cause to be stated) each question coming before the City Council;
(3) announce the decisions of the City Council on all subjects;

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 14 (4) decide all questions of order subject to the right to appeal rulings on questions of order to the entire City Council in accordance with Rule 12(d) below; and
(5) encourage all persons present at the meeting to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy.

RULE 11. SWORN TESTIMONY AND SUBPOENA POWER.

Any Councilmember may request that anyone appearing before the City Council on any matter shall be sworn. On receipt of such a request, all proceedings shall be suspended, and the City Council will immediately vote on whether the individual should be sworn. A majority vote of the Councilmembers present shall determine whether the speaker shall be placed under oath. All oaths will be administered by the City Clerk.

The City Council shall have the power to issue subpoenas as provided in City Charter Section 614.

RULE 12. RULES OF DEBATE.
(a) Getting the Floor. A Councilmember desiring to speak shall gain recognition by the Presiding Officer.
(b) Questions to Staff. Councilmembers desiring to question City staff shall address their questions to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk, or designated staff. Members of the City staff, after recognition by the Presiding Officer, shall hold the floor until completion of their remarks or until recognition is withdrawn by the Presiding Officer.
(c) Interruptions. A Councilmember who has the floor shall not be interrupted when speaking unless the Councilmember called to order by the Presiding Officer, a point of order or a personal privilege is raised by another Councilmember, or the speaker

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 15 chooses to yield to a question by another Councilmember. If a Councilmember is called to order, that Councilmember shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined. Whenever any person is called to order while speaking, such person shall be in possession of the floor after the question of order is decided, and may proceed with the matter under the discussion within the ruling made on the question of order. (d) Points of Order. The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order subject to the right of any Councilmember to appeal to the City Council. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of order. Questions concerning procedures or other legal issues may be directed to the City Attorney for legal advice. If an appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be overruled?” The Presiding Officer's decision may be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers then present. The City Attorney may also raise a point of order to provide advice to the Council should there be a concern about procedures, due process, or other legal issues.
(e) Point of Personal Privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the City Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character, or motives are questioned, or where the safety or welfare of the City Council is concerned. A speaker having the floor may be interrupted, when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to raise a point of personal privilege. (f) Privilege of Final Comment. The Councilmember moving the introduction or adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or motion, shall have the privilege of speaking last on the matter after all other Councilmembers have been given an opportunity to speak.
(g) Motion to Reconsider Legislative Actions. A motion to reconsider any

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 16 legislative action taken by the City Council may be made only by one of the Councilmembers on the prevailing side and may be seconded by any Councilmember.

Such motion may be made at any time and shall be debatable. A motion by a nonprevailing Councilmember or a request by a member of the public for reconsideration may be made only if one year has passed since the action was taken. (h) Calling for the Question. A question may be called by majority vote of those present. However, neither the moving party nor the party seconding any motion may call for the question, each Councilmember shall be afforded one opportunity to speak on each item before the question is called, and a question may not be called to interrupt or cut off a particular speaker.
(i) Limitation of Debate. Councilmembers shall limit their remarks to the subject under debate. Except for questions raised by another Councilmember to a Councilmember, no Councilmember shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other Councilmember desiring to do so has spoken. Prior to beginning deliberation, the Council may, by a two-thirds vote of those present, limit the amount of time that each Councilmember may spend stating the Councilmember’s views on a particular Agenda item.

RULE 13. PROTEST AGAINST CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for the Councilmember’s opposition to any action of the City Council entered in the Minutes.

Such opposition shall be made in the following manner: “I would like the Minutes to reflect that I opposed this action for the following reasons…” A written submission may be provided to the City Clerk to be included in the record.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 17 RULE 14. DISCLOSURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS.

On quasi-judicial matters, Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off-the-record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before City Council consideration of the matter. Disclosure shall include the identity of any individual(s) with whom the Councilmember had contact, and the nature of the contact.

RULE 15. PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
(a) Permitted. Pursuant to the Brown Act, public testimony is permitted on all Agenda items, except ordinances for second reading or as otherwise provided in these rules, and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any matter that is not on the Agenda but is within the City Council’s jurisdiction. However, members of the public do not have the right to give testimony outside the scope of or unrelated to the Agenda item under consideration. Additionally, members of the public should strive to avoid unduly reiterating their own or others’ testimony.
(b) Registration. Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council regarding any item on the Agenda for public discussion shall register with the City Clerk staff prior to the start of the meeting, if possible, but no later than prior to the public hearing on that item. Except when donating time to another speaker, which will only be permitted when both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting, a request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and may only be heard with Council approval.
(c) Manner of Addressing the City Council. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, members of the public addressing the City Council shall go to the podium, state their name and whom they represent, if they represent an organization or other person. Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to also state their

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 18 address, neighborhood, or city of residence. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof. After a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the City Council on the matter under consideration without first securing City Council approval. (d) Written Public Comment. Those wishing to provide public comment are encouraged to submit it in writing via email to be viewed online. For written comments received by noon on the day of the Council meeting, best efforts shall be made to have them posted on the Council’s online Agenda. All written comments shall be made part of the public record.
(e) Time Limits. Except on Written Communication, members of the public shall limit their remarks to 2 minutes per comment section unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote or the City Council reduces this time limit because of the large number of speakers for public comment on the particular item. The order in which members of the public provide remarks will be determined by the City Clerk, to the extent possible giving priority to K-12 students speaking on their own behalf, those limiting their time to 1 minute on an item, while members of the public using the full 2 minutes will speak afterwards. Persons speaking on another’s written communication and persons submitting late speaker requests, who receive permission to speak shall be limited to 1 minute. On Written Communication, those speaking on another’s item may speak only if the person raising the matter appears and testifies. If the person who raises the item does not appear and testify, the matter shall be received and filed and persons wishing to speak on the matter may give their testimony during Public Input. Members of the public wishing to speak on more than one item shall limit their remarks to a total of 6 minutes per meeting unless the City Council grants additional time by majority vote. A member of the public

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 19 may allocate time between items in one-minute increments up to 2 minutes. Testimony given as an applicant or appellant does not count toward the 6-minute maximum. A Board or Commission member reporting to the City Council on behalf of a Board or Commission who was duly authorized to speak for the Board or Commission shall be limited to maximum of 5 minutes to speak.
(f) Special Time Limits for Applicants and Appellants. Applicants and appellants on administrative items and public hearings shall limit their remarks to 10 minutes and may reserve some of their time for use for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public hearing. The appellant shall have the opportunity to address the City Council first and last.
(g) Special Time Limits for Special Agenda Items. Public testimony is permitted on the City Manager’s Report and Appointments to the City Council.

Proclamations, commendations, and appearances by special guests are ceremonial items. To ensure adequate time for the Council’s regular business, groups of honorees or guests, who wish to speak, should appoint one or two representatives to speak for them.
(h) Special Assistance for Those Who Cannot Wait to Speak. Members of the public, including those with special needs, who cannot wait to speak on an Agenda item may request assistance from the City Clerk, and a member of the Clerk's office will provide assistance in preparing a written statement of testimony for distribution to the City Council.
(i) Extended Time Limits for Speakers Who Require Interpreter. A member of the public who utilizes an interpreter to provide English language translation shall receive twice the time otherwise allotted under these rules.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 20 (j) Donating Time to Another Speaker. Donations of time to other speakers may be made only if both the person donating time and the other speaker are physically present at the Council meeting. Except on Public Input, a member of the public, speaking on their own behalf, may donate 2 minutes per Agenda item to another speaker, speaking on their own behalf, and a speaker may accept one such donation from another per Agenda item. The speaker and the person donating time shall turn in their chits together, notify the Clerk of the donation, and go to the podium together. The speaker shall state both of their names and state that the speaker is speaking for both. Donated time shall not increase an individual speaker’s total time limit of 6 minutes per meeting. Any request received after the start of the hearing shall be considered late and the donor will not be permitted to donate the donor’s time.
(k) Any electronic presentation materials presented as attachments to written public comment submitted by email for viewing online must be submitted in accordance with the time deadline set forth in Section 15(d) above. Electronic presentation materials will not be accepted in connection with public comment being provided by calling in to the Council meeting. For speakers who will be physically present to provide public comment at the Council meeting, all electronic presentation materials intended for use in connection with the public comment, including PowerPoint presentations, videos, audio, electronic images, and electronic portable document formats (PDFs), but excluding any hardcopy document projected by the overhead projector, must be received by the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of a City Council meeting. All such electronic presentation materials must be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office and include the City Council meeting date, Agenda item number, and name of the public speaker who, as noted above, will need to be present at the meeting. See also Rule 5(i).

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 21 (l) Requests for Accommodation. Requests for a disability accommodation to provide public testimony at a Council meeting should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s office via email at [email protected] or via telephone at (310) 458- 8211 or TDD: (310) 917-6626 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Best efforts shall be used to accommodate requests received after the 72-hour deadline. In the case of special meetings, requests should be submitted as early as possible, but no later than noon the day of the Council special meeting.

RULE 16. RULES OF CONDUCT AND SAFETY.

When the City Council is in session, all persons present, whether in person or speaking by phone, must preserve safety and order and should strive to conform their conduct to the City's Civility Policy. Members of the public who are physically present at the Council meeting should sit in the audience seating area, unless addressing the City Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, should not block the aisles with personal belongings and should not bring audible equipment into the Council Chambers including cellular telephones or pagers. Members of the public may not, except when testifying on or participating in an Agenda item, enter the well area, which is the open area directly in front of the dais and extending outward from it to a line running between the points on the Clerk's desk and the podium nearest to the audience. Applause, vocally or clapping, is prohibited, except for ceremonial items, or as may be invited by the Presiding Officer.

Any person who disrupts the meeting shall be called to order by the Presiding Officer. Disruption shall include but not be limited to, blocking the audience or camera view of the proceedings. If such conduct continues, the Presiding Officer may request the Sergeant at Arms to remove the person from Council Chambers.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 22 The Chief of Police or such member or members of the Police Department as the Chief may designate, shall be Sergeant At Arms of the City Council and shall carry out all orders given by the Presiding Officer through the City Manager for the purpose of maintaining order at City Council meetings. Any Councilmember may move to require the Presiding Officer to enforce the rules, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the City Council shall require the Presiding Officer to do so.

RULE 17. SEATING ORDER.

After each municipal election, the City Clerk shall determine City Council member seating order by drawing lots, with the exception of the Mayor Pro Tem, who shall be seated next to the Mayor. Changes in seating may be allowed by the Mayor, without requiring a vote, for good cause when those changing seats consent.

RULE 18. ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AND FAILURE TO VOTE.

Every Councilmember is entitled to vote unless disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest. A Councilmember who abstains from voting consents to the decision made by the voting Councilmembers.

RULE 19. VOTING PROCEDURE.

Any vote of the City Council, including a roll call vote, may be registered by the members answering “Yes” for an affirmative vote or “No” for a negative vote upon the member’s name being called by the City Clerk. Voting order shall be based on seating order with each roll call vote beginning at alternating ends of the dais and the Mayor voting last.

Unless any Councilmember calls for separate votes in advance, any item on the Agenda with related sub-parts shall be treated as one agenda item and voted on in one motion. If the item and sub-parts receive sufficient votes for approval of some, but not all

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 23 sub-parts, at the immediate request of any Councilmember, the first vote shall be nullified and Council shall then immediately, without discussion, vote on each item separately.

When the Council is making appointments to any committee, board, commission, or equivalent, the Clerk shall ask for nominations, also reciting nominations received through an application process. If applicable, nominations may include one or more positions, such as chair and vice chair, or equivalent. The Council may split the vote on combined nominations by an approved motion. After all nominations are received, the Clerk shall recite the list of all nominees. The Clerk shall then call the roll, and each member shall identify the individual or individuals for whom they are voting. After all votes are cast, the Clerk shall recite the vote. If no nominee(s) receives a majority vote, then the two nominees receiving the highest number of votes shall then be voted upon in the same manner, until a nominee(s) receives a majority vote. If no nominee(s) receives a majority vote, the Clerk shall call for additional nominations and then repeat the process.

RULE 20. DISQUALIFICATION FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Any Councilmember who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter by reason of a conflict of interest shall publicly state or have the Presiding Officer state the nature of such disqualification and shall leave the dais prior to Council consideration of the matter. A Councilmember stating or having the Presiding Officer state such disqualification shall not be counted as part of a quorum and shall be considered absent for the purpose of determining the outcome of any vote on such matter.

RULE 21. TYPES OF MOTIONS.
(a) Only Councilmembers, or duly appointed members of boards sitting with the Council, may make Motions. The City Clerk shall record all motions and read them back when requested. Upon request, the City Attorney shall assist in the formation of motions.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 24 A Councilmember must have the floor to make a motion. (b) Any motion that does not receive a second shall not move forward, and then another motion may be made.
(c) For noticed public hearings and quasi-judicial matters, a main motion shall not be made until public comment on the item is complete. (d) There are three motions that are most common and are usually subject to debate:
(1) The main motion. This motion puts forward a substantive decision, most frequently an agenda item, for Council consideration. A main motion may include changes to the item as stated on the agenda or supplemental materials.

Only one main motion may be on the floor at one time.
(2) The motion to amend. This motion seeks to modify the main motion before the Council. A motion to amend cannot be made until there is a main motion on the floor. A motion to substitute a main motion with another motion shall be treated as a motion to amend. Only one motion to amend may be on the floor at one time. All motions to amend shall be resolved prior to voting on the main motion. (3) The procedural motion. This motion is to address a rule of procedure, postpone, or take some other action. Procedural motions take priority over main motions and motions to amend. Only one procedural motion may be on the floor at one time. A “point of order” may be raised at any time, interrupting a speaker when recognized by the Presiding Officer, to make a procedural motion.

Procedural motions are debatable but not subject to public comment. (e) The following common procedural motions shall be handled as follows:
(1) Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 25 immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote. It is the highest priority motion. (2) Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to immediately recess. The Presiding Officer determines the length of the recess. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(3) Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Council to adjourn the meeting at a specific time set in the motion. It is not subject to debate and requires a majority vote.
(4) Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires the discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item placed on hold. The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to Council. If the motion does not contain a specific time for the return of the item, a motion to take the item off the table will have to be taken at a future meeting to bring it back to the Council.

A motion to table or to bring it back to the Council requires a simple majority vote. (5) Motion to continue. This motion, if passed, requires the item to be withdrawn from the Agenda at that time and postponed either indefinitely or to a certain time and/or date, or to a time later in that meeting, as stated in the motion.

A motion to continue is debatable and requires a simple majority vote. (6) “Friendly Amendment.” This is a “request,” rather than a formal motion. The speaker asks whether the maker of the main motion would agree to amend the motion, as suggested. If agreed, and if the member providing the second also agrees, or another second is offered, then the main motion is replaced with the amended motion. If an offer for a “friendly amendment” is rejected, then a formal motion to amend may be made.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 26 RULE 22. CHANGING VOTE.

The vote of a Councilmember may be changed only if the Councilmember makes a timely request to do so immediately following the announcement of the vote by the City Clerk or the Presiding Officer and prior to the time that the next item in the order of business is taken up.

RULE 23. AGENDA MANAGEMENT.

At any time after roll call, the Mayor or Mayor Pro TemPresiding Officer may call for a motion for Agenda management to reorder or combine Agenda items or to determine when public comment may be taken on one or more items. However, public comment may be taken later, but not earlier, than the time or position shown on the Agenda. Noticed public hearings scheduled for a time certain may be heard later, but not earlier, than the time scheduled. Such a motion shall require the votes of a majority of the Councilmembers present to pass. If such a motion is passed, the City Clerk shall call Agenda items or comment opportunity in accordance with the Agenda as modified by the motion.

RULE 24. PROCEDURE ON AGENDA ITEMS REQUIRING A MOTION.

The following procedure shall be followed in connection with any Agenda item requiring a motion:
(a) City Clerk reads the title.
(b) Presiding Officer calls for a staff report.
(c) Councilmembers question City staff.
(d) City Council conducts Public hearing.
(e) City Council deliberates.
(f) A Councilmember makes a motion, another Councilmember seconds the

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 27 motion, and the Council debates it, with the maker of the motion having the opportunity to speak last.
(g) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk restates the motion. (h) The City Council votes on the motion.
(i) The Presiding Officer or City Clerk announces result.

RULE 25. PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, or, in their absence, their authorized representatives, shall attend and be present during all City Council meetings and give necessary service and advice.

RULE 26. RECORD OF MEETINGS.

All public meetings of the City Council shall be recorded. The recording shall be made by the City Clerk and retained in accordance with the City’s record retention schedule. The use of other recording or television equipment is permitted so long as it is not disruptive of the meeting.

RULE 27. USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO COMMUNICATE DURING MEETINGS During City Council meetings, Councilmembers shall not use electronic communications of any type, including texts and emails, to communicate among themselves.

RULE 28. ADJOURNMENT
No new item, other than Public Input, shall be considered after 11:00 p.m. unless consideration is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Councilmembers present.

RULE 29. CHARTER SECTION 615
In accordance with Charter Section 615, the adoption of all ordinances and resolutions shall be by reading of title only unless a Councilmember present at the

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 28 meeting objects.

RULE 30. INTERPRETATION AND MODIFICATION OF THESE RULES.

These rules shall be interpreted liberally to provide for the optimum in the free interchange of information and public debate without an unnecessary waste of time or duplication of effort. These rules may be amended by resolution.

RULE 31. FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES OF ORDER.

These rules of order and procedures govern the conduct of City Council meetings.

These rules are intended to expedite the transaction of the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion and are deemed to be procedural only. Failure to strictly observe these rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of the City Council or invalidate any action taken at a meeting that otherwise conforms to law.

RULE 32. COUNCIL BRIEFINGS.

The City Manager and/or City Attorney may meet with Councilmembers to provide briefings. Briefings shall be conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. No person shall attend these meetings other than the Councilmembers invited without invitation of the City Manager and/or City Attorney.

SECTION 2. Resolution Number 11517 (CCS) and all other resolutions adopting, amending, or relating to City Council Rules of Order, are hereby repealed in their entirety.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
DOUGLAS T. SLOAN
City Attorney

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (5782 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Approval of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. and Gen-Land, LLC
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. and Gen-Land, LLC, for the development of affordable and market housing on the assemblage site which includes City-owned parcels located adjacent to Expo Terminus Station.

2. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Summary
Following Council’s declaration that the approximately 1.85 acres of City-owned properties located at 1632-1640 5th Street and the Expo Line Kiss & Ride as “surplus land”, the City issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) to affordable housing developers in accordance with the State of CA’s Housing and Community Development Surplus Land Act (SLA) (Gov. Code, §54222). Staff conducted due diligence and analysis of 11 offers received and completed good faith negotiations in accordance with the SLA. An exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. (AMCAL), a California corporation, and Gen-Land LLC, a Texas limited liability company (also known as Lincoln Property Company) is recommended at this juncture of the SLA process to continue good faith negotiations with the City. Under an ENA, the City agrees to not solicit offers or proposals from other parties for the potential development of these surplus land parcels. The ENA also establishes the framework between

11.B
Packet Pg. 352
2 of 7
AMCAL, Lincoln Property, and the City to negotiate the schedule of performance, development terms, financing, and the community input process.

Background
On October 11, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 11470 (CCS) declaring the Cityowned parcels located at 1632-40 5th Street (APNs 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, 4290- 011-905) and Expo Kiss & Ride Lot (APN 4290-011-909, 4290-011-902 and 4290-011- 901) (collectively, “the Property”) to comply with the State’s Surplus Land Act (SLA) requirements. Under the SLA, the City, before it can initiate negotiations for the longterm lease or sale of the Property, must first prioritize affordable housing, and issue a Notice of Availability (NOA) to affordable housing developers, local park and recreation districts and departments, and school districts about the availability of the City-owned parcels and to give those entities the opportunity to submit an offer to lease or purchase the Property for affordable housing or other SLA prioritized purposes (including open space and recreation).

On November 11, 2022, the City sent an NOA to all affordable housing developers registered with the State’s Housing and Community Development Department and other required entities including the Los Angeles County’s Chief Executive Office - Asset Management Division and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) given the Property’s proximity to public transit. As prescribed by the SLA, the NOA timeframe is 60-days from the issuance of the notice. Affordable housing developers were able to submit interest and proposals to the City by January 13, 2023.

Discussion
In response to the NOA that was issued, the City received inquiries and/or proposals from 11 housing developers: AMCAL, Bridge Housing, Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Cypress Equity, Dignity Moves, EAH Housing, Menorah Housing Foundation, Mercy Housing, Novin Development, Olson Company, and West Hollywood

11.B
Packet Pg. 353
3 of 7
Community Housing Corporation. Nine of the proposals were structured to develop affordable housing requiring varying levels of financial assistance from the City in the form of a partial or full land subsidy, a long-term repayment plan with payback based on available residual receipts, or a combination of both. Four proposers offered to develop all seven parcels associated with the Property (shown on Exhibits 1- 3), however, only two proposers, AMCAL and Cypress Equity, offered to construct affordable housing without any financial support or a land subsidy from the City and to purchase all seven parcels associated with the Property as a bundle for the full appraised fair market value.

The 90-day good faith negotiations period, as prescribed by the SLA, was in effect from January 13, 2023 through April 13, 2023. An internal committee comprised of City staff from the Economic Development, Housing, and Planning divisions as well as the City Attorney’s Office evaluated the proposals received with consideration given to the developers’ experience, the total amount of proposed affordable housing production, and financing strategies. On April 11, 2023, in closed session, Council reviewed and considered the offers received for the Property and directed staff to continue negotiations with AMCAL and Cypress Equity.

On July 25, 2023, staff presented additional information submitted by AMCAL and Cypress Equity for Council’s consideration. Based on the development parameters and purchase price proposed from each proposer, Council directed staff to terminate negotiations with Cypress Equity and initiate the ENA process with AMCAL. Cypress Equity proposed to increase the number of affordable units to meet the SLA’s minimum requirement of 25% units for lower income households but reduced their purchase price by nearly 50%. AMCAL proposed to build additional housing units while maintaining their original purchase offer. Moreover, AMCAL proposed to acquire the adjacent commercial building at 1640 5th Street, commonly referred to as the “Comma Building” (Exhibit 4), from Lincoln Properties, to redevelop the entire assemblage site to produce additional housing units. The Comma Building is a 27,176 square foot office/commercial building constructed in 1976 situated on half an acre of land. Because AMCAL’s proposed acquisition of the Comma Building and the construction of additional housing by Lincoln Properties relies on the sale of the Comma Building, it is necessary for the

11.B
Packet Pg. 354
4 of 7
ENA to be tri-party agreement between the City, AMCAL and Lincoln Properties.

Preliminary design concepts contemplate approximately 570 housing units (the final unit count is subject to additional feasibility analysis and negotiations) on the assemblage site, with the market rate housing component developed by Lincoln Properties and the affordable housing component developed by AMCAL.

At this point in the SLA process, an ENA is recommended to establish the framework to allow staff to negotiate the schedule of performance including length of time to complete negotiations, development terms, financing, and the community input process. An ENA does not bind the City to an immediate lease or sale of the Property; it simply provides the developer assurance that the City will not be negotiating with other developers while AMCAL performs its due diligence and other responsibilities stipulated in the ENA.

As a condition before the execution of the ENA, AMCAL will remit a good faith deposit.

The City will utilize the funds in the deposit to cover costs including:
• in-house staff time (such as City overhead and administrative costs) • third-party consultation fees (including, but not limited to, consultants, engineers, architects, outside counsel, and advisors)
• financial analyses and design review, negotiations, appraisals, and, • other reasonable services and necessary agreements for the proposed project.

During the ENA term, AMCAL and Lincoln Property (Developer) may conduct inspections, tests, surveys, and other analysis deemed reasonably necessary to determine the condition of the Property as well as analysis to determine the feasibility of designing, developing, financing, and leasing the proposed project. Before a design is finalized, the development concept would be presented for community and stakeholder input for a period consistent with the City’s affordable housing notification and engagement process for affordable housing projects. The community engagement process, at minimum, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City Manager, will include:

11.B
Packet Pg. 355
5 of 7
• Developer conduct one (1) public meeting for the proposed development within 30 days of the delivery of final executed ENA and must provide a written notice which provides the date, time, and location of the public meeting to the following entities:

1. Housing Division – which will post the notice on its website at least 15 days prior to the public meeting date.

2. Neighborhood association(s) in which the proposed development is located; and

3. Local newspaper of general circulation.
• Prior to finalizing design drawings for submittal to review by the Planning and Community Development Department, Developer will conduct a minimum of two (2) public workshops with neighbors residing within 500 feet of the Development.

Developer is required to provide the City with an affidavit certifying that written notices were sent to all neighbors residing within 500 feet of the proposed development.

Once the community outreach and design process are completed, and all the requirements of the ENA have been met, staff would return to Council to present the final proposed development design and financial terms for Council’s consideration and approval with the request for the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a Development and Disposition Agreement for the sale of the Property.

Environmental Review
The negotiation and execution of an ENA does not have the potential for creating a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which states that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The ENA establishes the agreement framework to negotiate the schedule of performance, development terms, financing, and the community input process of the Property. The ENA does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the

11.B
Packet Pg. 356
6 of 7
environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as no development is authorized by the recommendation in this staff report and any future disposition will require separate environmental analysis if and when the details of such disposition are known.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
10/24/2006
(Attachment A)
Authorization to Acquire Properties at 1632-1636 5th Street 3/23/2021
(Attachment B)
Adoption of a Resolution of Inventory of City-Owned
Properties Subject to the Surplus Lands Act
10/11/2022
(Attachment C)
Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. The proposed ENA would include a deposit from AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. to cover City costs associated with negotiations. Financial impacts related to business terms associated with the proposed development will be brought back to Council for consideration.

Prepared By: Nia Tang, Senior Development Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Attachment A - Authorization to Acquire Properties at 1632-1636 5th Street (10/24/2006) - Web Link
B. Attachment B - Adoption of a Resolution of Inventory of City-Owned Properties Subject to the Surplus Lands Act (3/23/2021) - Web Link

11.B
Packet Pg. 357
7 of 7
C. Attachment C - Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties (10/11/2022) - Web Link
D. Attachment D - Exhibits 1 through 4

11.B
Packet Pg. 358
EXHIBIT 1
APN: 4290-013-906
Address: 1636 5th Street (Apple Building)
Legal Description:

TR=974 EX OF ALLEY LOTS 20 AND 21

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment D - Exhibits 1 through 4 (5979 : Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. (30 min)) EXHIBIT 2
APNs: 4290-011-903, 4290-011-904, and 4290-011-905
Address: 1636 5th Street (Parking Lot 29)
Legal Descriptions:
4290-011-903: TR=974 EX OF ST AND ALLEY LOT 17
4290-011-904: TR=974 EX OF ST AND ALLEY LOT 18
4290-011-905: TR=974 EX OF ALLEY LOT 19

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment D - Exhibits 1 through 4 (5979 : Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. (30 min)) EXHIBIT 3
APN: 4290-011-909, 901-011-901, 901-011-902
Address: Expo Line Kiss and Ride Lot (KNR)
Legal Description:
4290-011-909: TR=15603 FOR DESC SEE ASSESSOR'S MAPS POR OF LOT 1 4290-011-901: ELLIOTT"S ADDITION TO SANTA MONICA 1/2 VAC ALLEY ADJ ON SW AND LOT 9
4290-011-902: 1/2 VAC ALLEY ADJ ON NE AND POR OF LOT 8 M R 22-11 AND POR P. 3-30-31

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment D - Exhibits 1 through 4 (5979 : Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. (30 min)) EXHIBIT 4
APN: 4290-011-017
Address: 1640 5th Street (Comma Building)
Legal Description:

LOT COM AT MOST N COR OF LOT 22 TR NO 974 TH SE ON SW LINE OF PALMS CT TO NW LINE OF OLYMPIC BLVD TH SW THEREON 292.21 FT TH NE ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO NW (R=666.78 FT) TO NE LINE OF ALLEY TH NW THEREON TO NW LINE OF SD LOT TH NE THEREON TO BEG POR OF LOTS 22, 23 TR NO 974 AND POR OF RANCHO SAN

VICENTE Y SANTA MONICA

11.B.d
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment D - Exhibits 1 through 4 (5979 : Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. (30 min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
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 two seats on the Human Services Commission for terms both ending on 6/30/2026.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. HSCList

16.A
Packet Pg. 363
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
Human Services Commission
Name Application Date
Finkelstein, Helen M.

Manvel, Marie
Muntaner, Zoё
03/30/2023
05/02/2023
04/07/2023
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 3

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: HSCList (5977 : Appointment: Human Services Comm. (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Appointment to one L.A. West Vector Control District seat for a term ending on 6/30/2026.

Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. LACWVectorList

16.B
Packet Pg. 365
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
L.A. County West Vector Control District
Name Application Date
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 0

16.B.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: LACWVectorList (5978 : Appointment: L.A. West Vectrol Control (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember Brock and Councilmember Parra that the City of Santa Monica oppose SB 423 and direct the City Manager to have the City’s State lobbyist take all action necessary to advocate on the City’s behalf.

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

A. SB 423 (Wiener) NASCAR Sen Floor Alert 5 25 2023
B. ACTION ALERT SB 423 (Wiener) Sen Floor 5 24 2023

16.C
Packet Pg. 367
May 25, 2023

SENATE FLOOR ALERT
SB 423 (Wiener) By-right Housing Approvals. SB 35
(Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Expansion.

OPPOSED
File #168
The League of California Cities and the 95 cities listed oppose SB 423, which would greatly expand SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) provisions and extend the Jan. 1, 2026 sunset date to Jan. 1, 2036.

Local leaders are working to find creative solutions so homes of all income levels can be built. They’re taking on these difficult and complex tasks, and in many cases successfully planning for more than 2.5 million new homes statewide, all while navigating the state’s annual barrage of overreaching housing bills that have thus far demonstrated limited success.

SB 423 is the latest overreaching bill. This measure would double-down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing plans by forcing cities to approve certain housing projects without regard to the needs of the community, opportunities for environmental review, or public input.

Instead of continuing to pursue top-down, one-size-fits-all legislation, lawmakers should partner with local officials. That’s why we continue to call on the Governor and lawmakers to include a $3 billion annual investment in the state budget to help cities prevent and reduce homelessness and spur housing development. Targeted, ongoing funding is the only way cities can find community-based solutions that get our residents off the streets and keep them in their homes.

California will never produce the number of homes needed with an increasingly state driven, by-right housing approval process. What is really needed is a sustainable state investment that matches the scale of this decades-in-the-making crisis.

Cities and towns opposed to SB 423:

Agoura Hills
Apple Valley
Artesia
Atwater
Banning
Bellflower
Bell Gardens
Benicia
Beverly Hills

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: SB 423 (Wiener) NASCAR Sen Floor Alert 5 25 2023 (5992 : Opposition to SB 423) Big Bear Lake
Blythe
Brentwood
Burbank
Calimesa
Carpinteria
Carson
Cathedral City
Chowchilla
Chula Vista
Citrus Heights
Clovis
Coalinga
Colton
Concord
Cotati
Del Mar
Downey
Duarte
Eastvale
Elk Grove
Fairfax
Fortuna
Garden Grove
Glendora
Hesperia
Highland
Huntington Beach
Indian Wells
Inglewood
Irwindale
Kerman
La Habra
La Mirada
Lafayette
Lake Forest
Lakeport
Lancaster
Lincoln
Lodi
Lynwood
Manteca
Menifee
Mission Viejo
Modesto
Montclair
Moorpark
Morgan Hill
Murrieta
Newport Beach
Norco
Norwalk
Novato
Orinda
Palm Desert
Palos Verdes Estates
Paramount
Pinole
Pleasant Hill
Point Arena
Rancho Mirage
Rohnert Park
Rolling Hills Estates
Rosemead
San Anselmo
San Clemente
San Fernando
San Marcos
San Rafael
Santa Clarita
Santa Fe Springs
Simi Valley
South Gate
Stockton
Temecula
Thousand Oaks
Tracy
Truckee
Turlock
Tustin
Vacaville
Vista
Whittier
Wildomar
Yorba Linda
Yucaipa

16.C.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: SB 423 (Wiener) NASCAR Sen Floor Alert 5 25 2023 (5992 : Opposition to SB 423)

ACTION ALERT
OPPOSE SB 423 (Wiener)
By-right Housing Approvals: Multifamily Housing Developments: SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Expansion.

Background: In 2017, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed SB 35. This law makes the approval of certain multifamily developments, “ministerial” actions. As a result, the approval of these developments pre-empts local discretionary land use authority, bypasses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and ignores public input.

What does SB 423 specifically do?
• Extends the Jan. 1, 2026 sunset to Jan. 1, 2036.
• Applies SB 35 provision to cities that have not been found in substantial compliance with housing element law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
• Applies SB 35 provisions to developments in the Coastal Zone. • Allows the state to approve housing developments on property they own or lease without being required to follow local zoning and development standards. • Prohibits a city from enforcing its inclusionary housing ordinance if the income limits are higher than those in SB 35.

SB 423 would greatly expand SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) provisions and extend the Jan. 1, 2026 sunset date to Jan. 1, 2036 requiring cities to ministerially approve certain multifamily housing projects without public input or environmental review.

SB 423 may be voted on the Senate Floor at any time between May 24 and June 2. 1) Voice your opposition TODAY by CALLING YOUR SENATOR and express your opposition. Click here to find your Senator.
2) If your city would like to join the growing coalition of cities opposing SB 423, contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager to be added to the Floor Alert (attached).

ACTION

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: ACTION ALERT SB 423 (Wiener) Sen Floor 5 24 2023 (5992 : Opposition to SB 423) Talking points:
• City officials intimately understand the housing crisis as it plays out in their communities every day. Local leaders are working to find creative solutions so homes of all income levels can be built.
• Cities are finalizing local housing plans that will identify sites for more than 2.5 million new homes statewide, all while navigating the state’s annual barrage of overreaching housing bills that have thus far demonstrated limited success. • SB 423 is the latest overreaching bill, would force cities to approve certain housing projects without regard to the needs of the community, opportunities for environmental review, or public input.
• Instead of continuing to pursue top-down, one-size-fits-all legislation, lawmakers should partner with local officials.
• That’s why YOUR CITY NAME is calling on the Governor and lawmakers to include a $3 billion annual investment in the state budget to help cities prevent and reduce homelessness and spur housing development.
• Targeted, ongoing funding is the only way cities can find community-based solutions that get our residents off the streets and keep them in their homes. • California will never produce the number of homes needed with an increasingly state driven, by-right housing approval process.
• Join me and oppose SB 423 (Wiener).

16.C.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: ACTION ALERT SB 423 (Wiener) Sen Floor 5 24 2023 (5992 : Opposition to SB 423) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember Brock and Mayor Pro Tem Negrete to give direction to the City Attorney and City Manager to: (1) draft and return with Municipal Code amendments that would limit noise affecting City residents between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.; (2) request that the City’s state lobbyist continue to advocate and pursue state legislation to enable the City to use soundactivated devices to enforce vehicle noise limits; (3) evaluate the ability to enforce California Vehicle Code 27150 and 27151 and (4) evaluate the costs and ability to deploy sound-activated devices to enforce noise limits on the Promenade.

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

16.D
Packet Pg. 372
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 12, 2023
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 Councilmember Zwick, Councilmember Torosis, and Mayor Davis that the City Manager study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to prevent dangerous motor vehicle incursions into Santa Monica’s protected and unprotected bike lanes. Specifically, the City Manager should consider enhanced enforcement by parking and traffic officers, photo enforcement to the extent allowable by law, a targeted curb management evaluation and space reallocation to reduce double parking in bike lanes, and the deployment of quick-build infrastructure to protect bike lanes and reorient parking on streets in the City’s existing and planned protected bikeway network whenever feasible.

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

16.E
Packet Pg. 373