Santa Monica City Council
September 26, 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.

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber X (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:38 PM)

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber Plus (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:38 PM)

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber Black (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:40 PM)

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Uber SUV (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 7:41 PM)

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Lyft at (Saturday 01/24/2015 at 9:05 PM)

8.E.e
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Attachment E. March 17, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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).

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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%

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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:

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.f
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Attachment F. Nov 10, 2015 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code 9 of
9 J. Powerpoint Presentation

8.E.g
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Attachment G. Nov 14, 2017 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.h
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.h
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.h
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.h
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.h
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Attachment H. Nov 13, 2018 Staff Report (6012 : 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;

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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.

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : 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

8.E.i
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Attachment I. July 28, 2020 Staff Report (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Item 10.E
09/12/23
1 of 1 Item 10.E
09/12/23

8.E.j
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Written Comments (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.49 on Taxicabs) 1 City Council Meeting: September 26, 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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 3 6.49.020 Authority of designated employees of the Police Department to have access to summary criminal history information.

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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 4 (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 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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 5 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.
(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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 6 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; (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;

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 7 (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;
(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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 8 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.
(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;

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 9 (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.
(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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 10 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:
(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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 11 (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 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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 12 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.
(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;

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 13 (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. (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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 14 (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; (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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 15 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.
(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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 16 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 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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 17 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 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

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 18 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. (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.

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal 19 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:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

8.E.k
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: 6.49 Taxicab Permit Ordinance 09.26.2023 Final (6012 : First Reading of proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.F
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.

8.F
Packet Pg. 1428
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

8.F
Packet Pg. 1429
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.

8.F
Packet Pg. 1430
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: Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Council Rules Reso 080323
B. Written Comments

8.F
Packet Pg. 1431
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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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,

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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;

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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).

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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.

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : 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

8.F.a
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Council Rules Reso 080323 (6014 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan Subject: City Council Agenda Item 11.A.3 - Resolution Amending Council Rules of Order and Procedure

EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: Tricia Crane
Re: City Council Agenda Item 11.A.3, Sept. 12, 2023
Adoption of Resolution Amending Council Rules of Order and Procedure: Adopt the attached proposed resolution amending the City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure and repealing Resolution No. 11517 (CCS).

Dear City Council,
I request that City Council add the following to the proposed Resolution Amending City Council’s Rules of Order and Procedures in order to restore a sense of good will between the Council and the community and open government:
1) Restore the practice of allowing Council members to ask clarifying questions of members of the community who speak in public comment and to allow speakers to finish their sentence or request without cutting them off.
2) Restore the log that previously existed on the City website to show the dates and substance of meetings held by City staff with lobbyists.

On the first matter, it is in the interest of good governance that the Council should once again allow yourselves to ask clarifying questions following a comment from a community member. It would restore civility to return to the practice of allowing speakers to complete their last sentence without cutting them off mid‐sentence during public Comment.

While the Council decided to make meetings more efficient by using an electronic timer and banning the asking of clarifying questions, the unintended consequence has been a degradation of the atmosphere of meetings. These changes have created an unfriendly and unwelcoming climate in Council chambers.

Community members want to trust the Council and feel connected to our government. Council meetings should be experiences where people feel valued.

Councilmembers will be required to exercise restraint in order to not add to the length of already long meetings, but there will be great benefit in terms of good will if Council allows brief clarifying questions when additional information is needed or desired.

8.F.b
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Written Comments (6014 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) 2 On the second matter, during former City Manager Rick Cole’s redevelopment of the City website changes were made that diminished transparency on the City Clerk’s page. Where it was once possible for community members to access a log of meetings held by City staff with lobbyists, that log is no longer accessible.

The Search tool does not currently serve this purpose on the site.

I understand that the website was updated last year, but easy wayfinding to the log was not apparently a goal of that update.

Please restore access to the log of meetings held by City staff with lobbyists as it is in the interest of transparency and openness.

Sincerely,
Tricia Crane

8.F.b
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Written Comments (6014 : Update Council Rules to include hybrid and other changes) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.G
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

8.G
Packet Pg. 1462
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

8.G
Packet Pg. 1463
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

8.G
Packet Pg. 1464
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:

8.G
Packet Pg. 1465
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

8.G
Packet Pg. 1466
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

8.G
Packet Pg. 1467
7 of 7
C. Attachment C - Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Surplus Properties (10/11/2022) - Web Link
D. Written Comments

8.G
Packet Pg. 1468
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joe DiRosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment on 11.b

EXTERNAL
I think someone should do a study to see what effect the power lines supplying the train will have being that close to a residential development. Those lines are creating electrical fields which more often than not, cause cancer under prolonged exposure.

Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO | Seedlings Inc.

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Photo
M: (310) 770-5171
E: [email protected]
A: Seedlings.vc

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

8.G.d
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Written Comments (6007 : Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. (30 min)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.H
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. (Continued from 9/12/2023.)
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. HSCList

8.H
Packet Pg. 1470
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

8.H.b
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: HSCList (6016 : Appointment: Human Services Comm. (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.I
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. (Continued from 9/12/2023.)
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. LACWVectorList

8.I
Packet Pg. 1472
City of Santa Monica
Boards and Commissions Applicants
L.A. County West Vector Control District
Name Application Date
TOTAL APPLICANTS: 0

8.I.b
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: LACWVectorList (6017 : Appointment: L.A. West Vectrol Control (5 Mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.J
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Request of Councilmember Brock to give direction to the City Attorney and City Manager to: (1) request that the City’s state lobbyist continue to advocate and pursue state legislation to enable the City to use sound-activated devices to enforce vehicle noise limits; (2) evaluate the ability to enforce California Vehicle Code 27150 and 27151 and (3) evaluate the costs and ability to deploy sound-activated devices to enforce noise limits on the Promenade.

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

A. Written Comments

8.J
Packet Pg. 1474
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dana Borowka <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16D Sept 12th meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear City – I have been a life long resident of SM. I am in full support of 16D! I would like to comment on the Hotel11 Union sound issues. The amount of noise that they have been creating for hotel guests at the Fairmont, locals and residents in the area is way out of hand. The city needs to do something immediately ! Over this past holiday weekend the union had musicians blasting there so called music with horns and drums so loud that my wife and I while in the hotel attempting to talk with the front desk person had to talk at a very high volume and lean over the desk so they could hear us and so we could hear them. This is with the doors closed to Ocean Ave while in the Fairmont. Would any of you tolerate such a thing ?
Then we had lunch outside on the property and once again we had to lean over and talk very loud just so my wife and I could have a conversation. When we have been in Fig with all the windows closed we had to talk very loud to hear each other. This is NOT right and not acceptable!!!! They are playing games with the city in that I think there has to be 10 min of sound hitting a certain level on a city sound meter and if they stop for just 1 second the clock starts all over. They are play games with the city on this 10 min issue.

During this past holiday weekend I clocked the sound time and they did not stop and just keep going with the extremely loud noise well over the 10 minute limit for the city to monitor the noise. I called the SMPD on a number of occasions while on the Fairmont property and all that I’m told is that they have the right to picket. I have no issue with them picketing… it’s the level of noise disturbance that is my issue.

So I’d like to know from the city what my rights are along with others that are living in the neighborhood, for those staying the hotel, for those that eat at the hotel, for those that work at the hotel with regards to the sound issue???
Hotel 11 Union clearly have no boundaries… no respect for others… My wife and I will NOT stop going to the Fairmont under any circumstances – the city needs to take a stand with them. Picketing is one thing – loud noise that is disturbing others is a whole other issue ! Even when they went way over the 10 min limit I didn’t see anyone from the city telling them to turn the noise level down nor did I hear the noise level being reduced. In the past I have noticed that they will sometimes stop the noise at the 9 min mark and then as you all know the clock for monitoring starts all over again. They know how to manipulate the system.

So what is the city going to do about Hotel 11 Union… what can I do about the noise level and how they block the side walks with no respect for people walking on the city side walks… what can the Fairmont do about it…what can other hotels and business do about it… what can the neighbors do about it..? I would like the answers to my questions to be shared with the public.

Item 16.D
09/12/23
1 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 How would any of you feel if you lived in the area near a hotel or staying in the Fairmont and were woken up to loud noise from Hotel 11 Union and hearing it throughout the day ? What if you lived in the area and were ill or elderly – how would you deal with it ? I feel really bad for everyone having to deal with this issue and not seeing the city doing anything about it.

The other thing is that if the city would look at various postings on the web you’d see that Hotel 11 Union is hurting business in our city. That means the city is getting a bad reputation – and is losing tax revenue because of them ! That is NOT good for our city and could cut into city services for those of us that live in the city… that work in the city.. that have a business in the city… Thanks for all that you do for our city. It is much appreciated and I am so glad the city has the noise issue on the agenda. If you have any questions please let me know. I love our city – we have had our business in SM for decades – we are property owners – I’ve gone through the entire school system growing up and really don’t like what’s been going on with the Hotell11 Union people creating so much noise and disturbing a lot of people. It’s not good for the citizens of SM… it’s not good for business revenue… it’s not good for property values.. it’s not good at so many levels for a city that prides itself on being respectful – on helping those in need, etc.

PLEASE HELP !
Have a great week!
Talk to you soon,
Dana Borowka, MA
Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer

LIGHTHOUSE
Consulting Services, LLC
Bringing effecƟve insight to your business SM
Phone: 310-453-6556, Ext. 403
Fax: 310-828-6987
[email protected]
http://www.lighthouseconsulting.com

Check out our new video on our services!
Sign up for our Keeping on Track! Publication and Open Line web conferences Check out our latest books, Cracking the Personality Code, Cracking the Business Code and Cracking the High-Performance Team Code
In-depth Work Style & Personality Assessments - Productivity Consulting - Interpersonal Coaching - Workshops - Skills Testing
This communication (including all attachments hereto) is intended only for the person (s) or entity (ies) to which it is addressed, and may constitute confidential or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, Item 16.D
09/12/23
2 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient (s) is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.

Item 16.D
09/12/23
3 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Dan Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 2:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Oppose Item 16D

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, Councilmembers Brock, Parra, de la Torre, Torosis, and Zwick, The right to strike is constitutionally protected free speech, as is the right to make noise during protests and picket lines.

While I personally might find this noise uncomfortable or annoying as a resident and frequenter of downtown (I don't), I did not serve my country to protect these very rights only to say nothing when they are at risk, especially right here in my home.

I urge Council to not restrict the time during which noise can be made as a guise to limit the free speech of workers on the picket line. I urge Council to stand in solidarity with workers ‐ be they hospitality workers, health care workers, writers, actors, and every other union participating in this #HotLaborSummer ‐ as they fight to be able to afford to live near job centers like Santa Monica and other job protections. As the son, grandson, and great‐grandson of unionized workers, I am proud of Santa Monica's history as a labor town, going all the way back to 1937 when 200 workers at the Douglas Aircraft Company initiated a sit down at the Santa Monica factory, in their first, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to unionize with the UAW. Sadly, as evidenced by their failed attempt, our city has an equally long history of wealthy special interests acting against low and middle class workers attempting to improve working conditions and wages.

In proposing Item 16D, Councilmember Brock is siding with wealthy special interests and dark money provided by an east coast Republican named Richard Berman and his organization, the Center for Union Facts. The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years and has conducted local push‐polls asking about the union’s protests.

The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right‐wing organization with a hateful, anti‐worker, anti‐environment agenda.

Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi‐million‐dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, and his organization should have no place in Santa Monica politics. A simple Google search can reveal all you need to know if you don't trust me.

Item 16D would give this anti‐union, anti‐middle class organization exactly what it wants, a limitation of free speech. The proposal should be rejected.

Dan Hall
Santa Monica, CA
Item 16.D
09/12/23
4 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Geneva Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Geneva Carter
[email protected]
2906 Montana Ave
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
5 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Isabel Storey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Isabel Storey
[email protected]
2227 22nd Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
6 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Sterling Long-Colbo <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Sterling Long-Colbo
[email protected]
846 4th Street #209
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
7 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: William Shaffer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

William Shaffer
[email protected]
212 Alta Ave
Santa Monica , California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
8 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Leslie Ziontz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Leslie Ziontz
[email protected]
212 Alta Ave
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
9 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Carol Bowman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmember Brock’s request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Carol Bowman
[email protected]
1032 6th street
Santa monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
10 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Natalya Zernitskaya
[email protected]
Santa Monica
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
11 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Lyla Rothschild <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Lyla Rothschild
[email protected]
2411 21st Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
12 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 8 Vernice Hankins
From: Leah Ho <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Leo
3400 Beethoven Street
Item 16.D
09/12/23
13 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Charlie Carnow <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 7:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Councilmember Brock are siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts (CUF) recently conducted a “poll” asking whether “the union should be allowed to protest.” CUF is a right-wing front group for corporations. Their leader Rick Berman, who embraces the nickname Dr. Evil, is a notorious corporate lobbyist who has fought against raising the minimum wage and expanding sick leave, represented tobacco companies in opposing limits on smoking in restaurants and bars, and fought environmental protections on behalf of oil and gas companies, among others.

I urge that Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Councilmember Brock listen to Santa Monica residents like me instead of wealthy corporations and the CUF. Santa Monica should not be doing the bidding of Rick Berman. I stand with the workers who are fighting for a dignified contract by expressing themselves in the ways they can.

Please reject Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Charlie Carnow
[email protected]
165 Bennett Ave, 5F
New York, New York 10040
Item 16.D
09/12/23
14 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Loretta Bryant <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmember Brock’s request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Loretta Bryant
[email protected]
1917 17TH ST, 7
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
15 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kathryn Summers <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Kathryn Summers
[email protected]
1111 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
16 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jenifer Rooke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 3:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmember Brock’s proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmember Brock’s request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Jenifer Rooke
[email protected]
1112 17th Street, Apt.4
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
17 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Carol Rosskam <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Carol Rosskam
[email protected]
83 Pickering street apt 207
Needham , Massachusetts 02492
Item 16.D
09/12/23
18 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Carol Rosskam <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Carol Rosskam
[email protected]
83 Pickering street apt 207
Needham , Massachusetts 02492
Item 16.D
09/12/23
19 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.
[email protected]
2319 Oak Street Apt #6,
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
20 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jon Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 12:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16D - OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and City Councilmembers, Thank you for your efforts to reduce noise pollution in Santa Monica. I would support parts 2, 3, and 4 of this item.

However, I am concerned about the potential effects of part 1, which would limit the right to free speech in our city. This item is designed to limit the ability of striking workers to protest unfair labor practices at the hotels of Santa Monica.

The First Amendment protects the right to protest, even when doing so may make the neighbors of the hotel uncomfortable.

The purpose of protest is to draw attention to the unfair conditions that these workers face. We should not, must not, limit their ability to protest to a time or manner that is more convenient for others. Protests are, by their very definition, designed to be inconvenient.

If residents are upset about the amount of noise generated by the protests, they should call the hotel owners and tell them to immediately meet the demands of their workers. These hospitality workers form the backbone of the Santa Monica economy, and we should listen to what they have to say, even if it's happening at an inconvenient time. ‐‐
Jon Katz | President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
[email protected]
cell: (215) 962‐4357
Item 16.D
09/12/23
21 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Alex Cooley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Alex Cooley
[email protected]
518 Raymond Ave
Santa Monica , California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
22 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Veronica Herrera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Veronica Herrera
[email protected]
6385 Green Valley Cir, Unit 318
Culver City, California 90230
Item 16.D
09/12/23
23 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Francine Kubrin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Francine Kubrin
[email protected]
11628 Montana Ave.

Los Angeles, California 90049
Item 16.D
09/12/23
24 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Juan Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Juan Lopez
[email protected]
1518 Brockton
Los Angeles , California 90025
Item 16.D
09/12/23
25 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Christopher French <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Christopher French
[email protected]
3128 Sheri Drive
Simi Valley, California 93063
Item 16.D
09/12/23
26 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: kris sellman-johnson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.
kris sellman-johnson
[email protected]
1528 19TH ST, APT 4
SANTA MONICA, California 90404-3431
Item 16.D
09/12/23
27 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Lilly Rubi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Lilly Rubi
[email protected]
829 Broadway
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 16.D
09/12/23
28 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Robert Burk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Robert Burk
[email protected]
611 Woodruff Ave.

Los Angeles, California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
29 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Sherna Gluck <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Sherna Gluck
[email protected]
404 San Vicente Blvd, Unit 301, Unit 301, Unit 301
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
30 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Miriam Cantor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Miriam Cantor
[email protected]
5810 Saturn St
Los Angeles, California 90019
Item 16.D
09/12/23
31 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Karin Pally <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Karin Pally
[email protected]
607 Strand St, N/A
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
32 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Robert Frcek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Robert Frcek
[email protected]
961 Amherst Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90049
Item 16.D
09/12/23
33 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Carkos Cruz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Carkos Cruz
[email protected]
209 golden gate
San Francisco, 94102
Item 16.D
09/12/23
34 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: ELIZABETH MATHESON <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

ELIZABETH MATHESON
[email protected]
121 STRAND STREET, 5
Santa Monica Ca, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
35 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: John Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

John Williams
[email protected]
831 14th Street, Unit 2
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
36 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Prisca Gloor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Prisca Gloor
[email protected]
4055 Coolidge Ave.

Los Angeles, California 90066
Item 16.D
09/12/23
37 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Joanne Leslie
[email protected]
1351 Grant St,
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
38 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Roberto Santiago <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Roberto Santiago
[email protected]
2401 Virginia Ave Apt. 109
Santa Monica , California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
39 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Bruno Romani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Bruno Romani
[email protected]
909 Euclid st.

Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
40 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Merrill Rodin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Merrill Rodin
[email protected]
4265 Marina City Dr
Marina del Rey, California 90292
Item 16.D
09/12/23
41 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: antonio mendoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. antonio mendoza
[email protected]
725 S Spring St, Unit 14
la, California 90014
Item 16.D
09/12/23
42 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Steve Mcfarland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Steve Mcfarland
[email protected]
4747 Gambier St
Los Angeles, California 90032
Item 16.D
09/12/23
43 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Michael Shaw
[email protected]
4232 Campbell Dr.

Los Angeles, California 90066
Item 16.D
09/12/23
44 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Andrea Hackin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Andrea Hackin
[email protected]
1533 Yale Street
Santa Monica , California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
45 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Ross Bercun <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Ross Bercun
[email protected]
3750 Jasmine Ave, Apt 106
Los Angeles, California 90034
Item 16.D
09/12/23
46 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Marjorie Pearson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Marjorie Pearson
[email protected]
1528 Yale Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
47 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Anna Carella <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Anna Carella
[email protected]
508 Saint Louis Ave
Long Beach, California 90814
Item 16.D
09/12/23
48 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: David Misch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

David Misch
[email protected]
1027 Princeton St.

Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
49 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: michelene mundo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. michelene mundo
[email protected]
848 7th street #2
santa monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
50 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Jess Imme <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Jess Imme
[email protected]
155 S Rexford Dr, Apt F
Beverly Hills , California 90212
Item 16.D
09/12/23
51 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Su Jung Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Su Jung Park
[email protected]
1725 Ocean Ave
Santa Monica, California
Item 16.D
09/12/23
52 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Soraya Barabi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Soraya Barabi
[email protected]
1240 Brockton Ave
Los Angeles, California 90025
Item 16.D
09/12/23
53 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Alejandro Martinez <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Alejandro Martinez
[email protected]
11179 Charnock Rd Apt E
Los Angeles, California 90034
Item 16.D
09/12/23
54 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: sandi Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. sandi Lee
[email protected]
531 16th Street
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
55 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Richard Modiano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Richard Modiano
[email protected]
4039 Marcasel Ave., A
Mar Vista, California 90066
Item 16.D
09/12/23
56 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: lauren coodley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.
lauren coodley
[email protected]
80 harvard
napa, California 94558
Item 16.D
09/12/23
57 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Mary jo Dalton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Mary jo Dalton
[email protected]
740 19th Street
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
58 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: J. H. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

J. H.
[email protected]
13603 Marina Pointe Dr
Marina Del Rey, California 90292
Item 16.D
09/12/23
59 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Earl Witron <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Earl Witron
[email protected]
6565 Fountain Avenue - 05, 05
Los Angeles, California 90028
Item 16.D
09/12/23
60 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: janet maker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.
janet maker
[email protected]
925 Malcolm
Los Angeles , California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
61 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joshua Hirsch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Joshua Hirsch
[email protected]
817 11th Street #6
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
62 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Janice Collier <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Janice Collier
[email protected]
1313 14th St. Apt H
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
63 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joan Harper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Joan Harper
[email protected]
240 Baptiste Way
La Canada, California 91011
Item 16.D
09/12/23
64 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Lenny Potash <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Lenny Potash
[email protected]
3720 Edenhurst Ave.

Los Angeles, California 90039
Item 16.D
09/12/23
65 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Stanley H Epstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: ACTION ALERT: Hospitality workers have a right to free speech

EXTERNAL
Ladies and Gentlemen. If Pastor Bridle C. Roberts learned basic ethics and fundamental principles of fair communication from God, she must have missed the session on being honest in writings to thousands of her neighbors.

Her email, prepared by Unite Here and the SMDC, contains not word stating that 16. D (1) simply requests the drafting of language that regulates noises from 9PM to 5 AM.It is “dirty pool”by her  when the letter merely talks of restraining free speech, as do criminal and totally valid laws falsely yelling “Fire” in a theatre, and Trump’s statements encouraging illegal acts.

If she had mentioned extremely loud drum sounds from Unite Here in front of the Fairmont Hotel at 5:30 AM, her case would have been lost. So she left out the significant fact.If she considers Phil and Lana to be advocating a First Amendment violation, surely her congregation, the Union, and the Democratic Club have lawyers who could convince Doug Sloan that the assignment given to him would result in unconstitutional results.

Shame on her and her partners!
Stan Epstein. 310 393 7619
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Pastor Bridie Roberts, UNITE HERE Local 11" <[email protected]> Date: September 11, 2023 at 1:19:21 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACTION ALERT: Hospitality workers have a right to free speech Reply‐To: [email protected]

To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

UNITE HERE Local 11
Item 16.D
09/12/23
66 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 ee speech. Click here to send a letter today!
tel workers’ strike in Southern California history. Workers picket, chant, and use musical instruments as part of their efforts to w and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers' ability to fully express themselves. ch. Send a letter to the Santa Monica City Council HERE! at 5:30pm TOMORROW, TUESDAY, September 12. Click here to RSVP! UNITE HERE Local 11, 464 S. Lucas Ave. Suite 201, Los Angeles, California 90017 | www.unitehere11.org | privacy policy Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from UNITE HERE Local 11, please clic Item 16.D
09/12/23
67 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Rosa Manriquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Rosa Manriquez
[email protected]
1249 S. Woods Ave.

Los Angeles, California 90022
Item 16.D
09/12/23
68 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Miriam De La Paz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Miriam De La Paz
[email protected]
923 E 80th St
Los Angeles, California 90001
Item 16.D
09/12/23
69 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian Tabatabai <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Brian Tabatabai
[email protected]
1333 S Meeker Ave
West Covina, California 91790
Item 16.D
09/12/23
70 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Janette Navarrete <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Janette Navarrete
[email protected]
4801 West Ave J-5
, California 93536
Item 16.D
09/12/23
71 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Anya Rosensteel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Anya Rosensteel
[email protected]
407 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
72 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Julie Alley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Julie Alley
[email protected]
2900 4th Street Apt. 16
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
73 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Julia Plascencia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Julia Plascencia
[email protected]
1345 Edgewood Dr.

Alhambra, California 91803
Item 16.D
09/12/23
74 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: David Wagmeister <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

David Wagmeister
[email protected]
11847 Kiowa Avenue, #105
Los Angeles, California 90049
Item 16.D
09/12/23
75 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Judy Branfam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Judy Branfam
[email protected]
1530 5th St #325
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 16.D
09/12/23
76 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Analisa Swan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Analisa Swan
[email protected]
3406 Viewcrest Drive
Burbank, California 91504
Item 16.D
09/12/23
77 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Rebekah Slepski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Rebekah Slepski
[email protected]
1232 1/2 S. La Jolla Ave
Los Angeles, California 90035
Item 16.D
09/12/23
78 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Moises Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Moises Diaz
[email protected]
3419 Jasmine Ave Apt 11
Los Angeles, California 90034
Item 16.D
09/12/23
79 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Linda Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Linda Perez
[email protected]
5425 Carlton Way
Los Angeles, California 90027
Item 16.D
09/12/23
80 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Jeff Freeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Jeff Freeman
[email protected]
420 Hill Street, Apt 6
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
81 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jacki Weber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Jacki Weber
[email protected]
2022 Delaware Ave Unit 3
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
82 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Beth Stein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Beth Stein
[email protected]
3787 3/4 S Centinela Ave
Los Angeles, California 90066
Item 16.D
09/12/23
83 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Raul Yrastorza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Raul Yrastorza
[email protected]
1040 Euclid Street # 7
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
84 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Dency Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Dency Nelson
[email protected]
2415 Silverstrand Avenue
Hermosa Beach , California 90254
Item 16.D
09/12/23
85 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Sam Royall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Sam Royall
[email protected]
1455 Lucile Ave
Los Angeles, California 90026
Item 16.D
09/12/23
86 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Amayrany Mendoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Amayrany Mendoza
[email protected]
2345 Virginia Avenue #311
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
87 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Adam Overton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Adam Overton
[email protected]
1515 E Broadway #E
Long Beach, California 90802
Item 16.D
09/12/23
88 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mary Romanek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Mary Romanek
[email protected]
1247 17th St
Santa Monica, California 90404-1215
Item 16.D
09/12/23
89 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Janet Maker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Janet Maker
[email protected]
925 malcolm av
los angeles, California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
90 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Linda Lehnkering <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Linda Lehnkering
[email protected]
206 S Melrose St
Anaheim, California 92805-4027
Item 16.D
09/12/23
91 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jerilyn Stapleton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Jerilyn Stapleton
[email protected]
4444 Ensign Ave
W Toluca Lake, California 91602
Item 16.D
09/12/23
92 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Frederick Neumann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Frederick Neumann
[email protected]
1231 Euclid street
Santa Monica , California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
93 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Alvaro Espinoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Alvaro Espinoza
[email protected]
3764 watseka ave
L. A CA, California 90034
Item 16.D
09/12/23
94 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Rosa Santana <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Rosa Santana
[email protected]
3198 lamanda street
Los Angeles , California 90066
Item 16.D
09/12/23
95 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. [email protected]
18 Green St Apt 1
Lebanon, New Hampshire 03766
Item 16.D
09/12/23
96 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: stephan corbel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again
and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%.

Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects.

The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Sincerely,
Stephan Corbel
Item 16.D
09/12/23
97 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Michele Chase <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Michele Chase
[email protected]
1880 CENTURY PARK EAST
LOS ANGELES, California 90067-1612
Item 16.D
09/12/23
98 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Carolyn Fowler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Carolyn Fowler
[email protected]
8500 Byrd Avenue
Inglewood , California 90305
Item 16.D
09/12/23
99 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Diana Love <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Diana Love
[email protected]
3965 Sunkist Street
Palmdale, California 93551
Item 16.D
09/12/23
100 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: janet maker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. janet maker
[email protected]
925 Malcolm
Los Angeles , California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
101 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gala Goliani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Gala Goliani
[email protected]
2203 3rd St Apt 10
Santa Monica , California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
102 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Kim Reeder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Kim Reeder
[email protected]
2211 4th St., Unit 211
Santa Monica , California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
103 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Kimberly Emerson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Kimberly Emerson
[email protected]
3307 S Durango Ave
Los Angeles, California 90034
Item 16.D
09/12/23
104 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Margaret Gallegos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Margaret Gallegos
[email protected]
1259 palisades Beach Rd
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 16.D
09/12/23
105 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: carolyn jiyoung park <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. carolyn jiyoung park
[email protected]
953 n vendome st #7
la, California 90026
Item 16.D
09/12/23
106 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Emily Reyes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Emily Reyes
[email protected]
9059 Airdrome Street
Los Angeles, California 90035
Item 16.D
09/12/23
107 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Kurt Gonska <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Kurt Gonska
[email protected]
937 3rd Street #104
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
108 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jose Escalante <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Jose Escalante
[email protected]
3712 S CENTINELA AVE #6
Los Angeles, California 90066
Item 16.D
09/12/23
109 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Michelle Humphrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Michelle Humphrey
[email protected]
2501 Pico Boulevard, Unit 207
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
110 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Steven Solomon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Steven Solomon
[email protected]
1015 N. Edinburgh Avenue, #7
West Hollywood, California 90046
Item 16.D
09/12/23
111 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Jessica Craven <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Jessica Craven
[email protected]
4673 Cleland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90065
Item 16.D
09/12/23
112 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.
[email protected]
4316 Edenhurst Ave, Apt. 4
Los Angeles, California 90039
Item 16.D
09/12/23
113 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Sam Forman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Sam Forman
[email protected]
464 Lucas Ave
Los Angeles, California 90017
Item 16.D
09/12/23
114 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Denis Recendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Denis Recendez
[email protected]
129 W. 9th Street, #23
Azusa, California 91702
Item 16.D
09/12/23
115 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Anthony Nevarez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Anthony Nevarez
[email protected]
1731 Pico Boulevard, 23
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
116 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Virginia Hayes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Virginia Hayes
[email protected]
10660. Wilshire Blvd #502
Los Angeles , California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
117 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Irv Hershenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Irv Hershenbaum
[email protected]
1537 S. Wooster St. # 102
Los Angeles, California 90035
Item 16.D
09/12/23
118 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Chaskes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Michael Chaskes
[email protected]
2707 S FEDERAL AV
Los Angeles, California 90064
Item 16.D
09/12/23
119 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Joan Sekler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Joan Sekler
[email protected]
833 Lincoln Blvd.

Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
120 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Curtis Raynor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Curtis Raynor
[email protected]
5887 DOVERWOOD DR
Culver City, California 90230-7203
Item 16.D
09/12/23
121 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Lionel Mares <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Lionel Mares
[email protected]
12032 Neenach St
Los Angeles, California 91352
Item 16.D
09/12/23
122 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Susan Pindak <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Susan Pindak
[email protected]
11029 1/2 Strathmore Dr
Los Angeles, California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
123 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Ianthe Zevos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Ianthe Zevos
[email protected]
3015 Marathon St
Los Angeles, California 90026-2824
Item 16.D
09/12/23
124 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Caroline Luce <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Caroline Luce
[email protected]
8686 W. Olympic Blvd. Apt. 2
Los Angeles, California 90035
Item 16.D
09/12/23
125 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: John Harpster <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

John Harpster
[email protected]
1441 S Beverly Glen Blvd
Los Angeles, California 90024
Item 16.D
09/12/23
126 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kaveh Azadmanesh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Kaveh Azadmanesh
[email protected]
1142 Princeton street
Santa Monica , California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
127 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Salvador Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Salvador Garcia
[email protected]
2622 28th St.

Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
128 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Antoinette Bill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Antoinette Bill
[email protected]
823 17th Street
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
129 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Megan Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Megan Daniel
[email protected]
1225 17th St APT D
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
130 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tony Figueroa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Tony Figueroa
[email protected]
1850 N. Whitley Ave., 201
Los Angeles, California 90028
Item 16.D
09/12/23
131 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mary Grace Barrios <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Mary Grace Barrios
[email protected]
1472 S Bedford St, Apt 5
Los Angeles, California 90035
Item 16.D
09/12/23
132 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Wisniewski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Michael Wisniewski
[email protected]
16126 Wedgeworth Dr.

Hacienda Heights, California 91745
Item 16.D
09/12/23
133 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Arkadio Kruz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
To: Councilmember Brock and Mayor Pro Tem negrete,
I am writing this letter in support of the Santa Monica Hospitality Workers Have a Right to Free Speech. I have been observing them protesting and respecting every aspect of the law. In contrast to some residents (White collar criminals) who have been very rude, disrespectful and racist. against the Santa Monica Police officers, and union workers. “These are workers who make its luxury hotels run and who are simply seeking a living wage. The city should be helping to lift them up, not attack them with baseless lawsuits.” I will support any noises they are making, until the savage corporation accepts workers' demands.

Thank you
Arkadio Kruz
Item 16.D
09/12/23
134 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Catherine Gentile <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Catherine Gentile
[email protected]
1128 Ocean Park Blvd., #312
Santa MonicA, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
135 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Arkadio Kruz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Arkadio Kruz
[email protected]
2028 Cloverfield Blvd.

Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
136 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Guadalupe Mendoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Guadalupe Mendoza
[email protected]
1424 Broadway, Apt. 302
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
137 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Melissa Manousos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Melissa Manousos
[email protected]
257 S Spring St
Los Angeles, California 90012-4383
Item 16.D
09/12/23
138 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Connie Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Connie Sullivan
[email protected]
932 Via Nogales
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
Item 16.D
09/12/23
139 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Mary Grace Barrios <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Mary Grace Barrios
[email protected]
1472 S Bedford St, Apt 5
Los Angeles, California 90035
Item 16.D
09/12/23
140 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: James Brine <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

James Brine
[email protected]
218 21st street
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
141 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Juan Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Juan Martinez
[email protected]
10915 Hasty Ave
Downey , California 90241
Item 16.D
09/12/23
142 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Vivienne Kraus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Vivienne Kraus
[email protected]
130 Marywood Avenue
Claremont, California 91711
Item 16.D
09/12/23
143 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Mike Sinkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Mike Sinkov
[email protected]
146 S. Dillon Street
Los Angeles, California 90057
Item 16.D
09/12/23
144 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Andy Lieberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Andy Lieberman
[email protected]
1924 EUCLID ST Apt 307
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 16.D
09/12/23
145 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Mir Faugno <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Mir Faugno
[email protected]
7777 W 91 St, Unit # B1160
Playa del Rey, California 90293
Item 16.D
09/12/23
146 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: JENELLE HARDWICK <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

JENELLE HARDWICK
[email protected]
PO BOX 67662
LOS ANGELES, California 90067
Item 16.D
09/12/23
147 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Abdullah Ali <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Abdullah Ali
[email protected]
10866 w. Washington Bl. #603
Culver , California 90232
Item 16.D
09/12/23
148 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Yvette Toman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Yvette Toman
[email protected]
493 s Roxbury dr
Beverly hills, California 90212
Item 16.D
09/12/23
149 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 9/12/2023 item 16D

EXTERNAL
In their rush to bust the Unite 11 union (which Phil freely admitted to in the Santa Monica Lookout https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2023/September‐ 2023/09_11_2023_City_Council_to_Tackle_Noise.html), Phil and Lana have clearly failed to consider the impacts that sections 1 and 4 of this item would have on Santa Monica's still‐fragile economic recovery. It seems like poor public policy to shut the city down at 9 PM because a few perpetual malcontents can blow up certain councilmember's cellphones every time one of their neighbors closes a gate too loudly for their liking.

However, sections 2 and 3 of this item are great ideas. There's no reason for people to be driving around cars and motorcycles that are so that they leave a trail of car alarms in their wake. This would be a great item if amended to only include sections 2 and 3.

Item 16.D
09/12/23
150 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: JENELLE HARDWICK <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

JENELLE HARDWICK
[email protected]
P.O.BOX #67662, 10350 ALMAYO AVE.,#9
LOS ANGELES, California 90067
Item 16.D
09/12/23
151 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Analisa Swan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Analisa Swan
[email protected]
3406 Viewcrest Drive
Burbank, California 91504
Item 16.D
09/12/23
152 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Susan Sheu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Susan Sheu
[email protected]
614 26th St.

Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 16.D
09/12/23
153 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Naomi Blum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:21 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Naomi Blum
[email protected]
938 4th Street , #306
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
154 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Alexandra Cara <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Alexandra Cara
[email protected]
1846 1/2 Stoner Ave
Los Angeles, California 90025
Item 16.D
09/12/23
155 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. [email protected]
3827 Prospect Ave
Culver City, California 90232
Item 16.D
09/12/23
156 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Laura Gillette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Laura Gillette
[email protected]
1118 20th Street
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
157 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16d Noise Ordinance

EXTERNAL
I strongly support this item. Enforcement is badly needed, despite any opposiƟon from the special interest (hotel union) that currently benefits at the expense of residents and/or from those Councilmembers (Torosis and Zwick) who received this special interest group’s substanƟal support.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
Item 16.D
09/12/23
158 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Anastasia Foster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16 D

EXTERNAL
It's understandable that folks don't wish to hear noise around their residences, but we can't curtail the rights of union workers to strike and to use effective tools to strike.  Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Thank you,
Anastasia Foster
‐‐
Anastasia Foster
Chair, Santa Monica Rent Control Board
Board of Directors, Meals on Wheels West
CADEM Credentials Committee Co‐Chair & Delegate ‐ AD51
Item 16.D
09/12/23
159 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Sion Roy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Phil Brock Subject: Protecting worker rights

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

I hope you are all doing well. Today, I write to you to stand with the valiant workers who have engaged in pickeƟng in Santa Monica. Hotel workers have been fighƟng for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers should be allowed to express themselves by pickeƟng, chanƟng, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so. The proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers' ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues for the city of Santa Monica.

At a Ɵme when there are so many other prioriƟes for Santa Monica that unite us all, I ask that you reject the request to amend the municipal code on this issue. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Shy
Sion Roy MD, FACC, MSCCT
Harbor UCLA
Cardiology
Director, InpaƟent Cardiac CT
Associate Cardiology Fellowship Program Director Associate Professor of Medicine Past President, Los Angeles County Medical AssociaƟon Trustee, Santa Monica College Item 16.D
09/12/23
160 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. [email protected]
5610 Harvey Way
Lakewood, California 90713
Item 16.D
09/12/23
161 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Clare Haygood <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Clare Haygood
[email protected]
2336 22nd St.

Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
162 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) September 12, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
c/o City Clerk
1685 Main St., Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Agenda Item 16-D (Request of Councilmember Brock and Mayor Pro Tem Negrete to give direction to the City Attorney and City Manager to draft and return with Municipal Code amendments that would limit noise affecting City residents between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., etc.) Dear Hon. Councilmembers,
The proposed amendments to the City’s Municipal Code set forth as part of Agenda Item 16-D will place unconstitutional limits on free speech. There is no rational basis for such sweeping time-based restrictions on public expression. These proposed measures would silence members of our community who are simply attempting to stand up and peacefully speak out in favor of living wages and fair working conditions. I therefore respectfully urge you all to vote against these proposed restrictions.

1. Santa Monica’s Existing Noise Ordinance Adequately Protects Residential Neighborhoods
Santa Monica's existing noise ordinance is the product of many years of careful deliberation by members of this Council, and it reflects extensive input from key public stakeholders. The current noise ordinance provides adequate protections against amplified noise in residential neighborhoods, and other laws adequately protect public safety.

Municipal Code section 4.12.060 provides the following noise limits (the noise limits for “Zone I” apply to residential neighborhoods):

Item 16.D
09/12/23
163 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) Pursuant to Municipal Code section 4.12.060(b), “[f]or each Noise Zone, the allowable exterior equivalent noise level shall be reduced by five dBA for impulsive or simple tone noise, or for noises consisting of speech or music.”

2. Santa Monica’s Existing Noise Ordinance Adequately Addresses Noise on the Third Street Promenade
Noise limits at the Promenade are set forth in section 6.116.030 of the Municipal Code:
* When measured at a minimum distance of twenty-five feet from the source of the noise. ** When measured at a minimum distance of one foot from the source of the noise.

3. We Must Support the Right of Members of the Public Exercise Protected First Amendment Rights
Free speech is fundamental to a participatory democracy. At a time when our city’s workers have faced assaults, harassment, and other attacks, we must stand in solidarity and protect our cherished civil liberties. Our existing laws are sufficient, and no further legislative changes are needed.

Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 16.D
09/12/23
164 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: greg chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems

EXTERNAL
16D‐ Vehicles exhaust noise has significant health impacts on those near blvds and downtown ‐ please continue efforts to cite excessively noisy vehicles.
16E‐ Please make additional efforts to stop vehicle incursions into all bike lanes. Not one ride go by without encountering dangerous double parking in these lanes.

Greg Chasen
1318 10th St
Item 16.D
09/12/23
165 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jonathon Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Jonathon Garrett
[email protected]
3710 midvale ave
Los Angeles , California 90034
Item 16.D
09/12/23
166 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Dennis Hardwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Dennis Hardwick
[email protected]
2221 Careful Ave.

Cornell, California 91301
Item 16.D
09/12/23
167 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Liliana Hernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants.

The proposal should be rejected.

Liliana Hernandez
[email protected]
5627 Lexington av
Los Angeles , California 90038
Item 16.D
09/12/23
168 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Vivian Rothstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Vivian Rothstein
[email protected]
1107 Pacific St.

Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 16.D
09/12/23
169 of 169 Item 16.D
09/12/23

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) September 12, 2023
Subject: Item 16 C - Oppose, 16 D - Amend, 16 E - Support Dear Santa Monica City Council,
We urge the council to support, rather than oppose, the passage of SB423.

California is in the midst of a severe housing shortage driving high rents and homelessness; we can only solve these problems with a glut of more affordable housing. SB423 expands on SB35, which has streamlined over 18,000 affordable homes. This bill will massively increase the number of affordable homes across the state.

At its core SB423 is a good governance bill; it prevents cities from delaying or denying projects that already comply with local zoning and design standards determined through local governments. SB423 does not upzone or rezone new land; furthermore, the bill only applies to cities that don't have a compliant housing element or are behind on their housing goals. It is in Santa Monica’s best interest to ensure that our neighboring cities are held accountable to build their fair share of housing.

The bill has passed both legislative chambers and is on its way to the Governor’s desk, supported by a broad coalition of labor, environmentalists, pro-housing groups and civic organizations. We think Santa Monica should be a part of that coalition too.

Other Items
Item 16 D (Amend) - Proposed Noise Ordinance Changes
In light of recent studies that demonstrate the negative impact of traffic noise on health, Santa Monica should take proactive steps to enforce vehicle noise limits. Item 16-D needs to be amended to ensure any Noise Ordinance changes do not restrict the right of workers to organize and protest, and should be balanced with concerns

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) that night-time noise restrictions will delay economic recovery, where nightlife activities have been important in boosting visits to Downtown Santa Monica by locals and tourists.

Item 16 E (Support) Preventing Motor Vehicle Incursions into Bike Lanes Santa Monica Forward also strongly supports the request of Councilmember Zwick, Councilmember Torosis, and Mayor Davis for the city to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to prevent dangerous vehicle incursions into bike lanes. Every day we see vehicles parked blocking bike lanes which not only puts peoples’ lives unnecessarily at risk, it also discourages people from riding bikes or letting their children do so, which ironically leads to more traffic and demand for car parking. A city that prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian safety, is a better city for all–even including those who need to drive.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Bradley Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; David White
Subject: Item 16D- 9/12/2023 City Council Agenda- Public Comments

EXTERNAL
Re: Santa Monica City Council Agenda 9/12/2023- Item 16D Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and City Councilmembers, I am grateful for the opportunity that Councilmember Brock and Mayor Pro Tem Negrete brought forth item 16D regarding noise pollution but I am concerned with some of the implications of the proposed actions, particularly the potential impacts on legally-protected labor actions such as demonstrations and strikes by labor unions.

I do not believe that the first proposed action of limiting noise between 9pm and 8am would have the desired effect but would rather harm both the free speech rights of people protesting or participating in demonstrations as well as potentially hobble our economic recovery efforts by limiting the ability of businesses who host live music, dancing, or other such activities primarily in commercially-zoned areas. My primary concern with this proposal is the very real impact that it would have on workers who are currently striking in support of a fair contract for fair wages for their labor.

However, I do agree that we should continue utilizing and pursuing the ability to use (where we are not currently permitted to use) sound-activated devices to enforce vehicle noise limits. I personally live one block off of a major thoroughfare in the city and frequently experience disruptions as a result of very loud vehicles zooming down that street. It is a good idea to explore how we can better enforce California Vehicle Code 27150 and 27151 to improve the quality of life for Santa Monica residents and improve how Santa Monica workers and visitors experience our City.

I understand the desire to deploy sound-activated devices on the Promenade, but I urge the Council to consider the potential impacts on businesses on the promenade that emit more noise simply due to the nature of their business. Any direction to staff on this particular effort should include consideration of how to limit noise complaints in a way that does not restrict the ability of businesses that host live or recorded music, performances, or other activities that result in louder noise.

I look forward to listening to the Council’s discussion on this item and urge you to protect workers and our City's economic recovery in any action that you may take on item 16D.

Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Matt Jerd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Matt Jerd
[email protected]
808 4th street. Apt 325
Santa Monica , California 90403

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Emily Russell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Emily Russell
[email protected]
42 Dudley Ave Apt 6
Venice , California 90291

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Margaret Rhoads <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants. The proposal should be rejected.

Margaret Rhoads
[email protected]
966 Grindstone Harbor Rd
Orcas, Washington 98280

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian Colker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Brian Colker
[email protected]
614 26th St
Santa Monica, California 90402

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tracy Aldridge <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Tracy Aldridge
[email protected]
41 Dudley Ave apt 1
Venice , California 90201

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Arvin Bayani <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Arvin Bayani
[email protected]
South Hobart blvd
Los Angeles , California 90020

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rocio Mendoza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Rocio Mendoza
[email protected]
1424 Broadway 302
Santa Monica , California 90404

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: maria afridi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you. maria afridi
[email protected]
740 S St Andrews Place, 24
Los Angeles, California 90005

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Susan Mceory <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Susan Mceory
[email protected]
230 Pacific Street, # 108
Santa Monica, California 90405

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Ernesto Sanchez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Stand with Santa Monica Hospitality Workers (Oppose Item 16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I stand with the valiant workers, who have engaged in picketing in Santa Monica, and not the wealthy hotel corporations. Hotel workers have been fighting for a dignified contract with just wages, in what is the largest hotel workers’ strike in Southern California History. Nearly 15,000 workers at across 40+ hotels have walked out on the job since the July 4th weekend.

Workers can express themselves by picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments, and they are protected by the First Amendment in doing so.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's proposal to amend the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is simply asking for First Amendment issues.

At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Ernesto Sanchez
[email protected]
2306 s genesee ave
Los Angeles, California 90016

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Jessica Moreno <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Believe in Workers’ Right to Free Speech (Opposition to Agenda Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
I believe in free speech and that includes standing with workers as they are picketing, chanting, and using musical instruments.

Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves is unnecessary. Santa Monica should be a place where working people can exercise their voice, which is often their only tool to express themselves.

I ask why we should risk First Amendment issues, if the City already has a noise ordinance written with the intent of restricting “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.” At a time when there are so many other priorities, I ask that you reject Councilmembers Brock and Negrete's request to amend the municipal code. Thank you.

Jessica Moreno
[email protected]
333 n berendo
Los Angeles , California 90004

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Francisco Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants. The proposal should be rejected.

Francisco Lopez
[email protected]
1749 17th St Apt E
Santa Monica , California 90404

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Ligia Rivas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants. The proposal should be rejected.

Ligia Rivas
[email protected]
1336w 102nd st
Los Angeles, California 90044

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Sandra Ramirez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stand with workers, not the wealthy corporations (Comment against Item #16D)

EXTERNAL
Honorable Santa Monica Mayor and City Council,
Councilmember Brock is siding with the wealthy corporations and against free speech by proposing to change the city’s municipal code to restrict workers ability to fully express themselves.

The Center for Union Facts has opposed hotel worker protests for years. Now big hotel interests are at it again. The Center for Union Facts recently conducted a push-poll asking about the union’s protests. The Center for Union Facts is an extreme right-wing organization with a hateful, anti-worker, anti-environment agenda. An east coast Republican, Richard Berman, who likens himself to Donald Trump and runs multi-million-dollar campaigns against living wage efforts, should have no place in Santa Monica politics.

Councilmember Brock's proposal would give this anti-union organization exactly what it wants. The proposal should be rejected.

Sandra Ramirez
[email protected]
1336 w 102nd st
Los Angeles , California 90044

8.J.a
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Written Comments (6022 : Limit noise) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 26, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.K
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: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

8.K
Packet Pg. 1661
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Barbara Filet <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the moƟon by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combinaƟon of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Item 16.E
09/12/23
1 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Alejandro Hernández R <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:58 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family!

Item 16.E
09/12/23
2 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
As a resident, parent of a young child, biker, and driver, I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Jacob Wasserman
90403
Item 16.E
09/12/23
3 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Stephanie Manglaras <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:31 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! My son is in 11th grade at SaMoHi and rides his bike up 11th Street to school everyday.  I wish the route was safer for him and other kids to ride to school.  As a resident I support this motion.

Stephanie Manglaras
Item 16.E
09/12/23
4 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: M Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:37 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer! I use them every weekend and it's a huge annoyance to have to ride into the road when there is a dedicated bike lane.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
5 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Michelle Black <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:39 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I write today in support of the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to ensure that our city's bike lanes provide their intended benefits. Enhanced parking and traffic enforcement that reduces double parking will allow our children (and all of us) to actually use our bike lanes, increasing the safety of all, encouraging more active transportation, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the city.

We love living in Santa Monica, largely because we can do so much as a family without getting in the car.  My family bikes to and from our children's schools and sports practices and all over the city on weekends.  While we plan our routes around the city's bike infrastructure, there are some connectivity gaps I hope we continue to address.  Unfortunately, even some of our best bike lanes are often blocked, leading to terrifying moments for my 7‐ year‐old (and me) as he must leave the bike lane drivers expect to contain him.  We appreciate all that the city has done to encourage active transportation.  The 17th street bikeway is my son's favorite place to bike, and he is beyond excited that he can take it to Little League events at Memorial Park.  We all look forward to the quick implementation of safe streets projects in Santa Monica.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for families! ‐ Michelle Black
Item 16.E
09/12/23
6 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 7 Vernice Hankins
From: Trevor Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! I commute to my office at 1299 Ocean by bike every day and I HIGHLY appreciate good bike infrastructure. I hope Santa Monica continues to be a leader in this space. Reduce traffic, reduce emissions and promote healthily living by riding a bike!!!!!
Thanks
Trevor
Item 16.E
09/12/23
7 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 1:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Caro plain
1410 15th St, 90404
Item 16.E
09/12/23
8 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Stacia Vinar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:46 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Thanks,
Stacia Vinar
Item 16.E
09/12/23
9 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Etzel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:07 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Best,
Mike Etzel, MD
Item 16.E
09/12/23
10 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems; Devon Porter
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney and Devon Porter
Item 16.E
09/12/23
11 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason DeVita <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 2:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. I have lived in Santa Monica for 17 years, and I have seen the great progress we've made with bicycle infrastructure. And while I hope to see more protected bike lanes in the future, most of the bike lanes are currently unprotected. One of the issues with unprotected bike lanes is that they are often blocked by vehicles (among other things). When this happens, it forces me (and my kids) to swerve into the car lane or switch to the sidewalk. Neither of these choices are good!
I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Jason DeVita
1544 12th St.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
12 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1673 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: gerda newbold <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Thanks for your work on behalf of our City.

Gerda Newbold
Item 16.E
09/12/23
13 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: John Farren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situations. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
John Farren
3117 6th St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.E
09/12/23
14 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1675 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Sarah-Doe Osborne <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Sarah‐Doe Osborne
3117 6th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Sent by my carrier pigeon
Item 16.E
09/12/23
15 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1676 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Lucy Mannall <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 2:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Lucy Mannall
3008 3rd street, Santa Monica, 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.E
09/12/23
16 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Gwynne Pugh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 2:51 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Regards,
Gwynne
Gwynne Pugh, FAIA ASCE LEEDap

GWYNNE PUGH URBAN STUDIO
8758 Venice Blvd. Ste 200
Los Angeles, CA 90034
t: 310-396-4540
c: 310-505-9671
[email protected]
www.gwynnepugh.com
Item 16.E
09/12/23
17 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Karric <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Item 16E, Safter bike lanes now please!!!

EXTERNAL
SM City Council,
I'm writing to support item 16E.

Santa Monica is doing a good job with bike lanes, but there's a big issue: cars keep blocking them. This totally defeats the purpose of having bike lanes and puts riders in dangerous situations. Additionally, it makes our bike lanes less safe and inviting.

We can't just wait around for better infrastructure while more people are at risk when there are viable options right now.

So, I'm asking you to support this item and help us make our streets safer for everyone.

Thank you,
Michael Hinrichs‐Karric
1700 Centinela Ave
Item 16.E
09/12/23
18 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 2:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Mitchell DiPanni
11929 Kiowa Ave, Apt 8, Los Angeles CA 90049 ‐Daily visitor in Santa Monica. Seriously. I spend all of my Ɵme and money there…
Item 16.E
09/12/23
19 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1680 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Susie Dantzig <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50� Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
20 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Allon Percus <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Allon Percus
1105 Centinela Ave.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.E
09/12/23
21 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Diana Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. This city doesn't have many protected bike lanes but motorists regularly obstruct the ones we do have with impunity, forcing cyclists to endanger themselves more than they already do. For our authorities to tolerate this defeats the purpose of a bike lane.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Diana Williams
1000 block 25th st.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
22 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1683 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Steve Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:46 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
23 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Nancy Matson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a person who has worked and commuted to Santa Monica since 2005, I am writing in support of item 16E. I have been very pleased by the progress on bike/scooter lanes since I have worked in this city. To get to the next level of safety, we need enforcement so the lanes aren't blocked, for both efficiency and increased safety.

Thank you so much for your continued innovations in low‐emissions transportation! I have seen a dramatic increase in scooter/bike/train use at my organization in the years I've been working in this city. I personally used to drive alone to work every day for many years and now happily take other modes of transit to work. I appreciate any efforts to make my commute safer and help me recruit additional co‐workers to alternatives to cars for commuting.

Thanks!
Nancy Matson
(she/her)
Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance Transportation Committee WRAC Transportation & Mobility Committee
Del Rey Green Committee
"You don't need a car ‐‐ you need a ride!"
Item 16.E
09/12/23
24 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1685 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: joni yung <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:18 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.
** i consider myself fortunate to live in a city that has been working hard to make the streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians. but it angers me to no end when drivers knowingly block bike lanes (or worse yet, drive through them), cross bike lanes to enter driveways without watching for cyclists, or honk at cyclists sharing the road because they insist we should stay out of their way.
i'm attaching photos taken on broadway near 17th where cars are clearly blocking the bike lane. and this isn't the first time i've encountered this, mind you. they might not be the same cars, but it's an ongoing thing in front of the BEACH MOMS CDC.
thank you for you time if you read this far!
joni yung
sm resident since 1981
Item 16.E
09/12/23
25 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Item 16.E
09/12/23
26 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 ~~ autocorrect is turned off, so any typos are all mine ~~ Item 16.E
09/12/23
27 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Juan Bustamante <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:13 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Item 16.E
09/12/23
28 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Kush Mittal <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Kush MiƩal
Arizona Street.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
29 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 6 Vernice Hankins
From: Hannah Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situations. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Dr. Hannah Gray
Item 16.E
09/12/23
30 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: JoWanda Dziesinski <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:37 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Cc: [email protected]; Justin Baltz; John Baltz
Subject: 16E Safter Streets

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I'm a resident in Santa Monica now  for 12 years and have been a bike commuter for all of those years, fortunate to find work here as well.  My partner is the same, my teenage children have ridden their bikes to Grant, Jams, Samohi and now SMC and we ride our baby around in a bike as well.  So safe biking and safe biking lanes are a daily experience for us.  I LOVE the bright green lanes and the courteous culture in Santa Monica‐I feel local drivers are 99% on board with creating safe biking experiences for the community.

Recently I attended the screening of "The Engine Inside", a bicycle documentary and it was great to hear a panel of Santa Monica employees and community members helping us know what we can do‐it may seem very simple, but I really was not aware of how I could voice my perspective and they mentioned City Council emails and 311 so I am really grateful for that.More than one of them said that often there is the impression in the CIty that they don't hear from the community and there's no issues, so now I'm glad to understand what to do because safe bike lanes are ESSENTIAL to my personal life and to me one of the TOP BENEFITS of SANTA MONICA.

So now that we have covered the positive, here's the negative report.  It is quite common for Ubers, :Lyfts, food delivery services like Uber Eats and delivery trucks like Amazon to be in the bike lane, which of course requires a cyclist to make a dangerous move into the car lane to go around.  I have often wondered, why does a mammoth private company like Amazon, get to freely use our beautiful bike lane system, to the benefit of...Jeff Bezos? While an un‐armored, body‐ exposed local cyclist must make a risky move into traffic to cede to their agenda? In any case, I would like to title this nuisance/menace as "Outside non‐Santa Monica Businesses".because it never feels like locals are doing this sort of thing‐it has the taste and feel of outsiders who are only concerned with their immediate priority and have no concern or interest in our shared community values or culture.  So I think it's a fair question‐why are these businesses getting to take up this space while local cyclists, "doing what we are supposed to do" which is taking a bicycle instead of a car, to save the environment, create a peaceful culture and get exercise and teach our children the same, must get out of our designated bike lane and take personal risk (which I don't think Amazon, or Uber are invested in personally being worried about our safety).  And I'm not trying to be picky or possessive of the bike lane; anyone who is a bike commuter knows it's a real and genuine danger to go around these vehicles‐it's a more unexpected move for the traffic flow behind us and we often have to make a quick decision as the vehicle is parked in our lane coming up fast.  Specifically, I have OFTEN experienced a a Lyft?Uber etc car that Suddenly pulls in front of me and parks within feet of me‐I really wonder if they even saw me, and I have to do a dead stop or make a quick decision to go into the oncoming traffic to get out of their way.  They have no bike culture awareness whatsoever or even the awareness that they are putting someone's life in danger.  Can you imagine the outrage and Road Rage if a motorist encountered a stopped, parked vehicle in their lane?  It wouldn't be stood for! But cyclists are expected to just deal with these sort of things on a daily basis. I don't know if we are big complainers usually and it's nice to have a live and let live attitude, but maybe we should pick and choose when to have an easygoing attitude and maybe these outside companies don't deserve it.  I don't enjoy the risk myself, but I really get stirred up thinking of my teenage kids taking that risk as well as they go about their student and work life in Santa Monica‐or what if I'm taking my baby? So one last thing, upon leaving the screening of "The Engine Inside" a few days ago and hearing that I should take a picture and report any incidents, I immediately came upon an SUV Limo (Lyft) parked in the bike lane on Main Street.  I thought, well here we go, I will do as they suggested.  I pulled out my phone and took a picture of the license Item 16.E
09/12/23
31 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 plate.  Immediately the driver came out, started aggressively confronting me and my partner, calling me names, the passengers getting in the Lyft aggressively heckled us, and then a restaurant worker on main street ALSO started yelling, saying move along, stop looking for a conflict, just go around, etc.  All I did was say "I'm taking a picture of you being in the bike lane".  So this is how my first experience went of taking pictures/reporting and I think what it shows is the Aggression that cyclists face and the expectation that we should just Cede to the Almighty Motor Vehicle at all times...even in our own special lane! Perhaps not every attempt to record what goes on in the streets would be this dramatic, but I thought it was pretty ironic that it happened Right After the Cycling Screening and Panel put on by the SMC Sustainability, and really affects whether I'm willing to report in the future‐do I feel like getting confronted/yelled at?  In the least it shows that we do need MORE support out there.  Compared to the rest of LA, Santa Monica is a cycling haven, but..."Los Angeles" does come IN to Santa Monica,specifically by way of these CAR_CENTRIC people and goods transport businesses, and they haven't heard the news, that cycling is the way of the future and all that.  They haven't the heard the news, and they maintain an ENTITLED CAR DRIVER attitude that is so common in other areas, and is not just a nuisance, interfering with the cycling friendly culture here, but also a scary real danger to those of us using the BIKE LANES EVERY DAY for our personal business, the "people on the ground" who actually are living out this lifestyle of home/work/school/groceries/entertainment, All on a bike. We need your help out there to stay safe.

Thank you
JoWanda Dziesinski
90405
Item 16.E
09/12/23
32 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Jasper Kok <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 10:28 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
33 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Vernice Hankins
From: Andy Liberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 2:45 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I ride a bike regularly, and disdain the vehicles that park in my path while riding in Santa Monica! I support the moƟon by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combinaƟon of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Sincerely,
Andrew Liberman
Item 16.E
09/12/23
34 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Rowan Sullivan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 5:07 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioriƟze Ɵmely and effecƟve soluƟons to improve street safety and prevent the 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 evaluaƟon and space reallocaƟon 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 exisƟng and planned protected bikeway network whenever feasible.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioriƟzes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier acƟve transportaƟon opƟons, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously
support Item 16E.

My wife and I ride 11th street daily and are extremely excited for the planned separated bike Lane along the street.

We’ve been recently going out of our way to ride the new 17th street bike lanes, but having these lanes on 11th will be amazing! We oŌen have to leave the current bike lanes due to cars parked and double parked around intersecƟons (parƟcularly by the Starbucks on 11th and Wilshire) and are made to feel uncomfortable at intersecƟons whenever we cannot avoid blocking cars wanƟng to make right turns (and have been honked at for not moving into less safe areas of the road for their right turns).

We’re looking forward to seeing the planned infrastructure as soon as it’s possible! Many thanks,
Rowan and family
Item 16.E
09/12/23
35 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: April DS <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 4:53 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer!

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reduced double parking, and more protected bicycle infrastructure.

Please vote to make Santa Monica's streets safer for me and my family! Sincerely,
April De Stefano
Resident, Voter, Bicycle Rider
Item 16.E
09/12/23
36 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: JOHN BALTZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 12:36 PM
To: JoWanda Dziesinski; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White Cc: [email protected]; Justin Baltz; John Baltz
Subject: Re: 16E Safter Streets

EXTERNAL
Very nice!
I’m on board with that
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Saturday, September 9, 2023, 11:37 AM, JoWanda Dziesinski <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Council,
I'm a resident in Santa Monica now  for 12 years and have been a bike commuter for all of those years, fortunate to find work here as well.  My partner is the same, my teenage children have ridden their bikes to Grant, Jams, Samohi and now SMC and we ride our baby around in a bike as well.  So safe biking and safe biking lanes are a daily experience for us.  I LOVE the bright green lanes and the courteous culture in Santa Monica‐I feel local drivers are 99% on board with creating safe biking experiences for the community.

Recently I attended the screening of "The Engine Inside", a bicycle documentary and it was great to hear a panel of Santa Monica employees and community members helping us know what we can do‐it may seem very simple, but I really was not aware of how I could voice my perspective and they mentioned City Council emails and 311 so I am really grateful for that.More than one of them said that often there is the impression in the CIty that they don't hear from the community and there's no issues, so now I'm glad to understand what to do because safe bike lanes are ESSENTIAL to my personal life and to me one of the TOP BENEFITS of SANTA MONICA.

So now that we have covered the positive, here's the negative report.  It is quite common for Ubers, :Lyfts, food delivery services like Uber Eats and delivery trucks like Amazon to be in the bike lane, which of course requires a cyclist to make a dangerous move into the car lane to go around.  I have often wondered, why does a mammoth private company like Amazon, get to freely use our beautiful bike lane system, to the benefit of...Jeff Bezos? While an un‐armored, body‐exposed local cyclist must make a risky move into traffic to cede to their agenda? In any case, I would like to title this nuisance/menace as "Outside non‐Santa Monica Businesses".because it never feels like locals are doing this sort of thing‐it has the taste and feel of outsiders who are only concerned with their immediate priority and have no concern or interest in our shared community values or culture.  So I think it's a fair question‐why are these businesses getting to take up this space while local cyclists, "doing what we are supposed to do" which is taking a bicycle instead of a car, to save the environment, create a peaceful culture and get exercise and teach our children the same, must get out of our designated bike lane and take personal risk (which I don't think Amazon, or Uber are invested in personally being worried about our safety).  And I'm not trying to be picky or possessive of the bike lane; anyone who is a bike commuter knows it's a real and genuine danger to go around these vehicles‐it's a more unexpected move for the traffic flow behind us and we often have to make a quick decision as the vehicle is parked in our lane Item 16.E
09/12/23
37 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 coming up fast.  Specifically, I have OFTEN experienced a a Lyft?Uber etc car that Suddenly pulls in front of me and parks within feet of me‐I really wonder if they even saw me, and I have to do a dead stop or make a quick decision to go into the oncoming traffic to get out of their way.  They have no bike culture awareness whatsoever or even the awareness that they are putting someone's life in danger.  Can you imagine the outrage and Road Rage if a motorist encountered a stopped, parked vehicle in their lane?  It wouldn't be stood for! But cyclists are expected to just deal with these sort of things on a daily basis. I don't know if we are big complainers usually and it's nice to have a live and let live attitude, but maybe we should pick and choose when to have an easygoing attitude and maybe these outside companies don't deserve it.  I don't enjoy the risk myself, but I really get stirred up thinking of my teenage kids taking that risk as well as they go about their student and work life in Santa Monica‐or what if I'm taking my baby?
So one last thing, upon leaving the screening of "The Engine Inside" a few days ago and hearing that I should take a picture and report any incidents, I immediately came upon an SUV Limo (Lyft) parked in the bike lane on Main Street.  I thought, well here we go, I will do as they suggested.  I pulled out my phone and took a picture of the license plate.  Immediately the driver came out, started aggressively confronting me and my partner, calling me names, the passengers getting in the Lyft aggressively heckled us, and then a restaurant worker on main street ALSO started yelling, saying move along, stop looking for a conflict, just go around, etc.  All I did was say "I'm taking a picture of you being in the bike lane".  So this is how my first experience went of taking pictures/reporting and I think what it shows is the Aggression that cyclists face and the expectation that we should just Cede to the Almighty Motor Vehicle at all times...even in our own special lane! Perhaps not every attempt to record what goes on in the streets would be this dramatic, but I thought it was pretty ironic that it happened Right After the Cycling Screening and Panel put on by the SMC Sustainability, and really affects whether I'm willing to report in the future‐do I feel like getting confronted/yelled at?  In the least it shows that we do need MORE support out there.  Compared to the rest of LA, Santa Monica is a cycling haven, but..."Los Angeles" does come IN to Santa Monica,specifically by way of these CAR_CENTRIC people and goods transport businesses, and they haven't heard the news, that cycling is the way of the future and all that.  They haven't the heard the news, and they maintain an ENTITLED CAR DRIVER attitude that is so common in other areas, and is not just a nuisance, interfering with the cycling friendly culture here, but also a scary real danger to those of us using the BIKE LANES EVERY DAY for our personal business, the "people on the ground" who actually are living out this lifestyle of home/work/school/groceries/entertainment, All on a bike. We need your help out there to stay safe.

Thank you
JoWanda Dziesinski
90405
Item 16.E
09/12/23
38 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Auguste Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Auguste Miller
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.E
09/12/23
39 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Dan Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 10:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 16E - Support

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, Councilmembers Brock, Parra, de la Torre, Torosis, and Zwick, I am writing in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure - I use the new 17th Street and Ocean Avenue protected bike lanes weekly! - a lot of the unprotected bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles such as delivery trucks who do not follow the law, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane. This activity forces bike lane users such as myself into dangerous situations where we must enter traffic outside of our green lane. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure like we have on 17th and Ocean.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Dan Hall
Item 16.E
09/12/23
40 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: samantha karim <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situations
This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

When you make bike lanes safe for 8 year olds you make them safe for everyone and you will see a huge increase in cycling which has many health benefits to Santa Monica residents Item 16.E
09/12/23
41 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1702 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 4 Thank you,
Samantha Karim
14th and California Ave
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.E
09/12/23
42 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 5 Vernice Hankins
From: Leah Ho <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Leo
3400 Beethoven Street
Item 16.E
09/12/23
43 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ferris Kawar <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Agenda item 16E

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm writing in support of agenda item 16E, which will prioritize timely and effective solutions to make our streets safer. The proposed measures will help parents, like my wife and I, to feel confident riding our young daughters to Edison and JAMS and around town...and to eventually allow the girls to ride themselves around. Knowing the bike paths are protected and that our laws are working to enforce the lanes from reckless automobile drivers, residents and visitors to Santa Monica will be more likely to ride more frequently, thus relieving congestion and reducing air pollution.

Thank you,
Ferris Kawar
90405
(Sunset Park neighborhood)
Item 16.E
09/12/23
44 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: April DS <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support item 16E

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situations. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
April De Stefano
1400 block of Franklin Street
Item 16.E
09/12/23
45 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Tina <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:22 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I DO NOT Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in SM - ALL transportation means need safety - ask the voters

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I DO NOT support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct City manager White to conduct another study. Stop spending tax dollars on studies! If you want to know how to proceed, put the changes being proposed on the ballot and let people vote!
Item 16.E
09/12/23
46 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Brandon Curran <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 3:33 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council, I am writing in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situations. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be. We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure. I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you, Brandon Curran
Item 16.E
09/12/23
47 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Kevin Cheng <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Kevin Cheng
Item 16.E
09/12/23
48 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Jim Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:02 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Davis, Brock, Parra, Negrete , Zwick: Please Support Council Item 16E for Safer Streets: Council Agenda Tuesday, September 12th

EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Davis, Brock, Parra, Negrete , Zwick:

I would like to sincerely add my voice to Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance partners to support Santa Monica City Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis’ Item 16E that proposes we prioritize timely and effective solutions to make our streets safe for everyone.

I live and work in Santa Monica.  Riding my bicycle is my preferred mode of transportation to get around on a daily basis.  I constantly have to be on my guard.  Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure saves lives and encourages alternative modes of transportation.

As I am riding my bicycle, I continuously say to myself, "how am I going to die?" This keeps my situational awareness level high.  Nevertheless, I have had several close calls.  Please make this thoughtful call and support Council Item 16E for Safer Streets on September 12th.

Respectfully,
Jim Kennedy
Santa Monica 90405
cell: 310‐220‐9329
Item 16.E
09/12/23
49 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Vernice Hankins
From: Aaron H <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: Support for Item 16E

EXTERNAL
Dear SMCC,
I support item 16E proposed at thu upcoming city council meeting. Well, Santa Monica has made great strides in improving its bike infrastructure, much of that progress is being forestalled as many motorists still regularly drive through, stop, or park their vehicles in the bike lane. I regularly cycle through Santa Monica and unfortunately have had to dart into traffic in order to avoid colliding with these vehicles in the bike lane. This makes the roads less safe for all especially as it makes bike riders less predictable.

I'm personally hugely in favor of solutions that can be implemented today with existing low‐cost options rather than waiting years for "perfect" when the goal is to save lives on our roadways.

Please support this item and help make our streets safer for all! Regards
Aaron Harris
1835 7th St
Item 16.E
09/12/23
50 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:44 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Support for Council Item 16E for Safer Streets

EXTERNAL
Item 16.E
09/12/23
51 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Item 16.E
09/12/23
52 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 3 Dear City Council,
Every single day in Santa Monica, I find that my commute to work, meetings, and errands are blocked by motorists who have either stopped or parked in a bike lane.

This is not only illegal, it places me in a very precarious and dangerous situation where my personal safety on the road is at risk.

This illegal behavior of motorists’ incursions into bike lanes in Santa Monica has become endemic.

These traffic violations are rarely if ever enforced by the SMPD.

Please direct the staff and City Manager to come up with solutions that will provide for safer streets for all.

Enclosed is documentation of just a few of these bike lane incursions.  If you want more, I am sure I can come up with another HUNDRED or more.

Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
Item 16.E
09/12/23
53 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Alex Kargher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane. Those blocked lanes force users into dangerous and scary situaƟons, including forcing them to suddenly merge into traffic. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Alex Kargher
This message and any aƩached documents may contain informaƟon that is confidenƟal and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this informaƟon. If you have received this transmission in error, please noƟfy the sender immediately by reply e‐mail and then delete this message.

Item 16.E
09/12/23
54 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1715 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16E

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for Agenda Item 16E, focusing on the expansion of protected bike lanes in our city.

The existing protected bike lanes have been a tremendous asset, making non‐vehicular travel safer and more convenient. I believe that these lanes have contributed positively to our city's sustainability and health goals.

I strongly encourage the prompt adoption of our Bicycle Action Plan, with a focus on adding protected bike lanes.

Leveraging major road work, like the ongoing water main project on Broadway between 5th and 10th streets, as opportunities to introduce these lanes is a practical and efficient approach.

Expanding our network of protected bike lanes aligns with global sustainability trends and enhances our city's appeal for cyclists. It's a crucial step toward reducing emissions and creating a safer, greener community.

I urge your support for Agenda Item 16E and the continued development of our cycling infrastructure.

Thank you for your dedication to our city's well‐being.

Sincerely,
Chasen Daniels
1535 6th Street
Item 16.E
09/12/23
55 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 2 Vernice Hankins
From: Johanna Kracke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of item 16E. My husband and I are avid cyclists and we cargo bike our children to school at Will Rogers, and to work in Santa Monica, daily. Our 8 year old is proficient on a bike, but we are still hesitant to let him ride in the roads on his own bike with us due to how often the bike lanes fall short of keeping us truly safe.

We have been very proud to live in such a bikeable city and we think Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure. However, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situations. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be. Also the frequent use of sharrows is an inadequate solution. As my kids get older, I want to feel like they can safely ride their bikes to meet their friends or get around town ‐ and currently this is not something I would let them do.

We cannot afford to keep letting these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure. We can do better!!
I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Johanna Kracke
Santa Monica resident ‐ Franklin St 90404
Item 16.E
09/12/23
56 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1717 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: stephan corbel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:39 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again
and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%.

Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects.

The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Sincerely,
Stephan Corbel
Item 16.E
09/12/23
57 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1718 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ted Dubrawski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject: I support Item 16E!

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am wriƟng in support of item 16E. While Santa Monica is making great progress on its bike infrastructure, a lot of the bike lanes are regularly obstructed by motor vehicles, which defeats the purpose of a bike lane, as it forces its users into dangerous and scary situaƟons. This makes our bike lane network much less safe and welcoming than it could be.

We cannot afford to keep leƫng these occurrences put more lives at risk while we wait for more permanent infrastructure.

I urge you to support this item and help make our streets safer for all.

Thank you,
Ted Dubrawski
2221 ocean park Blvd. #5
Santa Monica Ca 90405
Item 16.E
09/12/23
58 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Guy Cheney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:09 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
I support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioriƟze Ɵmely and effecƟve soluƟons to improve street safety and prevent the 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 evaluaƟon and space reallocaƟon 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 exisƟng and planned protected bikeway network whenever feasible.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioriƟzes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier acƟve transportaƟon opƟons, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously
support Item 16E.

Guy Cheney
90404
Item 16.E
09/12/23
59 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.

Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.

Support: Agenda Item 16-E September 12, 2023
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance express our full support of item 16E. Santa Monica is a leader in sustainability as well as active and climate-resilient transportation that enhances community well-being.

Additionally, Santa Monica’s public safety inevitably extends to safeguarding people riding bikes. Our community and visitors love our bike infrastructure and our city’s commitment to invest in safer, protected and high visibility green bike lanes. Such safe bike infrastructure encourages healthier active transportation options, provides a choice and freedom to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduces GHG emissions helping to move us toward our climate goals in an efficient manner. Resoundingly, research and experience show again and again the same thing:
protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users–including drivers–by 30-50%.

Unfortunately, Santa Monica’s daily reality currently involves illegal blockages and incursions in our city’s bike lanes that undermine our safety investments and cause conflicts, subjecting people on bikes to less safe and outright dangerous conditions, jeopardizing our community residents, students, workers and neighbors as well as our visitors on bicycles.

Our community and visitors – particularly our most vulnerable– seniors and youth– are put at undue risk.

We applaud councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis’s motion of item 16E that instructs staff to take necessary actions that will make our streets safer. We support this motion to study and prioritize timely implementation of measures to prevent dangerous motor vehicle incursions into our current and future bike infrastructure.

We support the efforts to consider all options allowable to improve safety from motorized incursion in our bike infrastructure investments. Those efforts should include but are not limited to:
– making sure we are leveraging ample, significant signage;

– the deployment of quick-build infrastructure to protect bike lanes;

– reorient street parking in the City’s existing and planned protected bikeway network whenever feasible; – targeted curb management evaluation;
– space reallocation to reduce double parking in bike lanes; – photo enforcement to the extent allowable by law;
– enhanced enforcement by parking and traffic officers; and – identifying options for delivery and rideshare providers to educate drivers not to double park in bike lanes.

Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, a collaboration of local advocacy organizations and community members that advocate for safe, livable and sustainable streets that are welcoming to everyone, urge you to unanimously support item 16E for a safer Santa Monica!
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
Item 16.E
09/12/23
60 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Juan Matute <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:43 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for 16E: Make Santa Monica's Streets Safer! Attachments: TRB Poster Matute Curb Management (3).pdf; Matute, Dasmalchi - TR.A Paper.pdf

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I support the motion by Councilmembers Zwick and Torosis and Mayor Davis to keep our city’s bike lanes safe with a combination of enhanced parking and traffic enforcement, reducing double parking, and quickly building safer bicycle infrastructure.

City Clerk, I've attached two PDFs of academic studies for inclusion in the public record. Both are from a paper that was presented at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, part of the National Academies on Science, Engineering, and Medicine, an organization chartered by the US Congress that serves as the collective scientific national academy of the US.  This research paper demonstrates that the combination of too few curb space allocations to loading activity and enforcement negligence constitutes an unsafe condition for users of the city's 2nd street bike lane, which was blocked for 17% of the time between 6pm and 10pm during the observational study period.  25.7 bikeway users per hour needed to enter mixed flow traffic during dusk or nighttime hours and pass a vehicle that was double parked.  This study demonstrates the city's curb space allocations and high rates of loading zone violations create an unsafe condition for bicycle lane users.

Measure 16E is a step forward towards addressing these unsafe conditions through a proactive approach rather than waiting for a fatality or severe injury to act.

Please support 16E as a step to make Santa Monica's Streets safer for me and my family! Item 16.E
09/12/23
61 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jane Stuecken <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: I Support Item 16E to Prioritize Safer Streets for everyone in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Davis and City Council,
We here at SAFE, Streets Are For Everyone, support item 16E by Council Members Zwick, Torosis, and Mayor Davis to direct the City Manager to study and prioritize timely and effective solutions to improve street safety and prevent the 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.

Research and experience show again and again the same thing: protected bike lanes are good for everyone and reduce collisions and injuries for all road users (including drivers) by 30‐50%. Item 16E prioritizes measures to improve the efficacy of these road safety investments for both current and future projects. The City’s investments in Protected Bike Lanes encourage healthier active transportation options, provide a choice to move around Santa Monica without driving a car and reduce GHG emissions helping move us toward our climate goals.

Please unanimously support Item 16E.

Best, Jane Stuecken
Policy, Legislative and Advocacy Coordinator
Streets Are For Everyone
StreetsAreForEveryone.org
Item 16.E
09/12/23
62 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16E - Bicycle Safety

EXTERNAL
The 17th Street bike lane configuraƟon is unsafe for residents, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, elderly residents in senior homes, and motorists, especially where 17th St. intersects with Arizona and/or Broadway. More of the same is only more dangerous.

Furthermore, seemingly lost in these discussions is why unsafe bike riding does not receive the same enforcement aƩenƟon as dangerous acts by other vehicles. We do not tolerate any class of vehicle except bicycles rouƟnely running through stop signs and red lights, making unsafe turns, traveling against traffic, and endangering pedestrians. SƟff fines and vehicle impoundment seem appropriate.

And who is paying for the design and construcƟon of these lanes?  Licensing fees and a tax or fee on bicycle sales and repairs should be key to this discussion.

Please make sure the organized efforts of outside special interest groups, such as out‐of‐town bloggers and social media antagonists do not push aside residents’ concerns again.

Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
Item 16.E
09/12/23
63 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jason Mastbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 9/12/2023 item 16E
Attachments: 20230708_143501.jpg; 20230511_130315.jpg; 20230712_120559.jpg; 20230622_123933.jpg

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers, I'm writing to urge you to pass this agenda item. Keeping bike lanes clear is crucially important.

Blocked bike lanes aren't just a momentary inconvenience; telling cyclists to "just go around" frequently leads to severe injury and even death. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/6/9/23161361/uptown‐child‐bicycle‐crash‐semi Right now, blocked bike lanes is a daily occurrence all over Santa Monica; the attached pictures are a tiny tiny fraction of the pictures I have of bike lane violations. We're undermining our bike infrastructure efforts and putting people in danger (which could also put the city on the hook for more big settlements!) when we just paint a bike lane and then let it be commandeered as a valet lane, delivery loading zone, Uber dropoff, or whatever else motorists happen to feel justifies placing bike lane users at risk. Best practice from around both the country and the world shows that by far the most effective way to keep bike lanes safe and clear is to make it physically impossible for motorists to enter the bike lane. In spots where access needs to be maintained for specific uses, such as staff entry into Palisades Park or emergency service access, we should be placing automated retractable bollards that can be remote controlled by staff and emergency services instead of just leaving big gaping gaps in our bike lane protection and simply trusting motorists to do the right thing.

I also hope that should AB 361 be signed into law, that Santa Monica extends its pilot camera enforcement of bus lanes to bike lanes. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB361 Item 16.E
09/12/23
64 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) September 12, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
c/o City Clerk
1685 Main St., Room 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Agenda Item 16-E (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.) Dear Hon. Councilmembers,
I urge you to support these common sense safety measures.

A January 2023 report from the LA Times documents the fact that “[l]ast year in Los Angeles, more people were killed by someone driving a car than by someone wielding a gun” (see:
https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2023-01-19/essential-california-2022-trafficviolence-essential-california.) We need to do everything in our power to protect residents from traffic violence. Accordingly, I urge you to support Item 16-E.

Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 16.E
09/12/23
65 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) 1 Vernice Hankins
From: greg chasen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
16D‐ Vehicles exhaust noise has significant health impacts on those near blvds and downtown ‐ please continue efforts to cite excessively noisy vehicles.
16E‐ Please make additional efforts to stop vehicle incursions into all bike lanes. Not one ride go by without encountering dangerous double parking in these lanes.

Greg Chasen
1318 10th St
Item 16.E
09/12/23
66 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1727 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Item 16.E
09/12/23
67 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Item 16.E
09/12/23
68 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1729 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Item 16.E
09/12/23
69 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1730 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Item 16.E
09/12/23
70 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1731 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Effectively Violated? Empirical Evidence from a Curb Management Pilot in Santa Monica Business District
Authors:

Juan Matute1([email protected]) (corresponding author)
Eric Dasmalchi 1,2
Tianxing Dai 1,3
1 UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies
2 Masters of Urban and Regional Planning, UCLA
3 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, UCLA
Address:

UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies
BOX 951656, 3320 Public Affairs Building
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656
Abstract: New services for food delivery concentrate demand for pickup near restaurants which market on these platforms. In urban areas, these restaurants may be located in areas of high existing demand for streets and curbs by multimodal roadway users. The purpose of this paper is to inform the objectives and design of curb management projects that address both emerging and existing demand for curb space in business districts. The authors first review the literature to define objectives by which to measure the effectiveness of curb management. The authors then present an empirical study with micro-scale observations of a curb management pilot in an area of high Courier Network Service (CNS) activity in downtown Santa Monica, California. We find that length-of-stay violations significantly limit the effectiveness of the zone in eliminating double-parked vehicles and mitigating flow and safety impacts to users of an adjacent bikeway.

Additionally, we find that due to short lengths of stay and somewhat complementary arrival times, curb management zones in business districts can be designed to accommodate both passenger dropoff/pickup activity and goods pickup.

Keywords: curbs, pilot project, courier network services, transportation network companies Acknowledgements: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1736582. The National Science Foundation had no involvement in study design or execution. We are grateful to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Urban Solutions program for logistical support to place an observational camera in an office window.

This group had no further involvement in study design, analysis, or other components of the research.

Disclosure: Declaration of interest: Corresponding author is on the board of DTSM Inc., an unpaid civic service position. Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. worked with the city to launch the 1 Item 16.E
09/12/23
71 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) curb pilot zone studied herein. Neither the City of Santa Monica nor Downtown Santa Monica Inc. had any involvement over study design or execution.

Notes to publishers: The paper is designed for online publication. If accepted for publication, we can substitute B&W-friendly graphics for some existing charts and figures.

1. Introduction
Curbs are the interface between the transportation and land use systems and can provide the means by which transportation system users access adjacent land uses. New technology and business models have added to demand for curb space in urban business districts, where curb demand is often high.

Curbspace is supply-constrained in a way that off-street parking is not. The supply of off-street parking can expand in three dimensions through the construction of multi-story parking structures, which are common in some business districts.

Curbs are also part of the public right-of-way and controlled by the government, which makes them subject to political decision-making. Reallocating curb space in business districts combines policy and politics: balancing efficient curb use and the political challenges of making changes to the public right of way, especially adjacent to retail businesses that depend on customers storing automobiles in that right of way.

Given the inherent supply constraints and new technology-enabled demand for curb use, and politically-influenced public decision-making process, city planners and engineers are wanting for new approaches to curb space management in locations where new demand is particularly acute, such as business districts with concentrations of retail, restaurants, and/or nightlife. But prior to implementing such approaches, they must consider the objectives for curb management and how they will define the success of a curb management project.

To the existing literature, this observational study of a curb management pilot project in Santa Monica adds a review and discussion of objectives for curb management and a micro-scale data collection and analysis of a curb management pilot in an area with high Courier Network Service (CNS) activity. The analysis can be used to set assumptions in micro-simulation models of curb activity and offer data-driven insight into trade-offs present in curb space management decision-making for other jurisdictions.

1.1. Historical Perspectives on Curb Management
A review of foundational literature on street traffic engineering finds the basis of curb regulation is to balance the need for access to adjacent land uses while mitigating impacts to safety and traffic flow.

According to this foundational literature, the primary purpose of public streets is to facilitate movement. The need to facilitate the public's movement provides legal justification for 2 Item 16.E
09/12/23
72 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) the government to acquire private property rights or easements, sometimes through eminent domain, in order to establish a network of rights-of- way for public use. Citing John Dillon’s (1912) seminal work on the legal authorities for municipal governments’ actions, foundational traffic engineer Miller McClintock (1925) contends curb regulations should firstly prioritize transactions more connected to transportation than storage, and secondly seek to eliminate double-parking and impacts to traffic flow:
“While the streets are primarily for the purpose of travel and not for storage of vehicles or commodities, it must be remembered that the loading and unloading of vehicles is an integral part of transportation. It is just as essential to load and unload persons and commodities as it is to transport them, for little can be gained by mere movement over the street. Both the movement and the loading and unloading are equally important links in the chain of transportation. The storage of vehicles, when not in use, is not a primary function of the city streets.”
To aid cities in prioritizing transactions more connected to transportation than storage, McClintock (1925) makes a distinction between three classes of standing vehicles:
1) In-progress loading or unloading of merchandise or passengers. 2) “Live parking” - an attended vehicle waiting for the loading or unloading of passengers or merchandise
3) “Dead parking” - an unattended vehicle whose driver has left the vehicle.

McClintock (1925) writes that when dead parking “can be exercised only at the expense of other users of the street, it creates a nuisance and should be abated by public officials.” He finds that those late-comers who have been shut out of curb space, but have “actual business to transact,” as required by in-progress loading or live parking, “stop in the second lane, and create an evil which is generally known as double parking.”
McClintock’s foundational work has led to the designation of passenger loading zones, commercial loading zones, short-term parking zones, and other curb parking zones to differentiate between various stopping, standing, and parking activities. And McClintock provides guidance for when cities should use such zones: “As a general rule it may be taken that when use of a street for standing vehicles impairs the use of the street by moving vehicles, the privilege should be limited.”

1.2. Contemporary Research on Curb Management
Contemporary research research investigates the use of pricing to implement policy considerations for curb management: balancing curb pricing versus off-street pricing, either to reduce search time (cruising) or to allocate short-term parking demand to on-street spaces and longer-term demand to off-street spaces (Hensher and King 2001) (Shoup 2006). 3 Item 16.E
09/12/23
73 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1734 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) A more limited set of research documents the political challenges in reallocating curb parking space from long-term parking to other uses. This limited research indicates that 1 potential opposition to such reallocation considers both the loss of the prior use and possible benefits of the future use. On Polk Street in San Francisco, adjacent business owners who had not previously opposed the conversion of metered parking to a parklet, which can attract and serve retail customers, (Littke 2016), opposed loss of metered parking to a bicycle lane (Stehlin 2015).

Recent research considers new mobility’s impacts on demand for curb space and adjacent travel lanes. Lu (2018) found that 44% of all vehicles engaged in pickup or dropoff activities stopped in the street, rather than at the curb, during evening hours in a bustling Los Angeles area entertainment district. He found that 82.8% of vehicles blocking a travel lane were ride hailing vehicles, which stayed for an average of 0.7 minutes per transaction. Lu’s study informed the City of West Hollywood’s (2018) decision to extend hours of passenger loading zones in 12 areas of the city.

Two recent studies from Seattle focus on commercial vehicles activity in the central business district. One study of full-block observations found that many commercial park outside of loading zones, that many drivers indiscriminately use available passenger loading or commercial loading regardless of their vehicle type (Girón-Valderrama, Machado-León, and Goodchild 2019). Another study of vehicle GPS data from throughout Seattle’s downtown found that cruising activity decreased as more curb space was allocated to commercial vehicle parking (Dalla Chiara and Goodchild 2020).

Recent practitioner guidance suggest changes to street design (Mitman et al. 2018; Roe and Toocheck 2017) and the use of technology (Crist, Martinez, and Grosso 2018) to manage curb space.

1.3. New Mobility Trends and Curb Impacts
The combination of ubiquitous connected mobile computing devices, powerful cloud computing, and venture capital investment in new business models has led to a proliferation of new mobility services in the past decade. Table 1 summarizes existing and new mobility business models, vehicle types, and curb uses in business districts. This study focuses on CNS use of curb space, but also includes observations of ridehail activity.

TABLE 1: Existing and New Business Models for Curb Using Vehicles Business Model Brand Names Vehicle Type Typical Curb Uses Ridehail (TNC) Lyft, Uber Personal automobiles
and light duty vehicles
Passenger
pickup/dropoff
Short-term parking
Courier Network Services
(CNS)
Grubhub,
Doordash,
Personal automobiles
and light duty vehicles
Goods pickup/dropoff
Short-term parking
1 Parking sessions greater than 30 minutes in length. City code reviewed below defines short-term parking as sessions below 30 or 15 minutes in length.
4 Item 16.E
09/12/23
74 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Ubereats
Micromobility Service
Provider
Bird, Jump, Lime Fleet bike
Fleet scooter
Micromobility drop zone
Employer-provided commuter
shuttles
Bauer
Transportation
Services,
WeDriveU
Private coach bus Passenger loading
Long-distance passenger
buses
Flix Bus Private coach bus Passenger loading
Public transit Muni, AC Transit Public bus Passenger loading Commercial delivery FedEx, UPS Commercial vehicle,
truck
Food truck Kogi, Loncheras Mobile vending Vending
Courier Network Services Business Models
A Courier Network Service Company (CNS) platform makes arrangements with restaurants to sell menu items for delivery, recruits individual independent contractors to conduct deliveries on foot, bicycle, or by vehicle, and has a mobile application and web site to market menu items to end consumers. To earn revenue, the CNS platform charges the end consumer a fee and/or takes a percentage of sale from the restaurant. Restaurants can obtain a higher placement in search results by paying CNS platforms a greater share of their revenues and/or electing to provide delivery services exclusively through a single app. Some restaurants may choose to provide free delivery by increasing the share of revenue held by the CNS platform. Aggressive marketing practice or high popularity can concentrate pickup demand at just a few restaurants, intensifying demand for nearby curbs.

Non-employee couriers performing pick-up and delivery bear the cost of any delivery mishaps, including extended wait time at the restaurant, parking tickets, traffic congestion or roadway closures, an inability to locate the recipient party. Couriers are paid a fixed amount per order and have an economic incentive to minimize the time taken to pickup and deliver orders.

As of June 2019, there were four major CNS platform companies providing prepared food delivery, none with more than 35% market share (see Table 2).

TABLE 2: U.S. Courier Network Service Providers
Provider Primary Markets Estimated Market Share (Rieck 2019) Amazon Flex General goods
Amazon Fresh
Perishable goods, general goods
18% of online grocery sales
Instacart 68.6% of online grocery sales
5 Item 16.E
09/12/23
75 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) Postmates Perishable foods, prepared foods,
general goods

10.8% of prepared food delivery
Amazon
Restaurants
Prepared food
0% - shut down in June 2019
(Porter 2019)
Caviar <6% of prepared food delivery
Grubhub 32.7% of prepared food delivery
DoorDash 33.8% of prepared food delivery
UberEats 16.7% of prepared food delivery
This study does not distinguish between Curb Network Service providers.

1.4. City of Santa Monica 2nd Street Pilot
Santa Monica, California, United States is a coastal community between the City of Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles region is a dispersed metropolis (Gordon and Richardson 1996) of 13 million in the metropolitan statistical area. Santa Monica is one of the top employment and population sub centers identified by Guiliano and Small (1991), and Downtown Santa Monica concentrates employment in the finance, real estate, information technology, retail, restaurant, and hospitality industries. In addition to the daytime employment population, Downtown Santa Monica is a popular regional beach-adjacent destination for shopping, recreation, and entertainment
Second Street is a collector street with a general purpose lane and bike lane in each direction with a combination of metered parking and turn lanes adjacent to the curb (see figure 1). The southwestern side of the street, the subject of the curb pilot, is faced with zero lot-line buildings without surface parking. The block is a part of the downtown Santa Monica parking district, which has not required on-site parking during the period in which most extant buildings were developed.

Figure 1: Traffic diagram of block with two-space pilot zone (yellow), traffic lanes (white), bike lanes (green), metered parking spaces (white boxes), significant buildings, curb cuts (darker grey), bus layover zone (red), sidewalks (light gray), and mid-block pedestrian crossing. The observational time-lapse camera was placed in the blue-shaded building.
6 Item 16.E
09/12/23
76 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) The City of Santa Monica’s Second Street curb management pilot is a conversion of two metered parking spaces to an evening short-term loading zone.The two curb spaces are adjacent to a mixed-use residential building with ground floor retail including three eat-in restaurants that also offer delivery. This building has an off-street underground parking garage for residents, but not retail customers, which accessed via the alleyway. Directly across Second Street from this building is a 698-space, 9-story, above-ground public parking structure owned by the City of Santa Monica. The City offered all automobiles 90 minutes of free parking in this structure and nine other downtown structures at the time of the study.

On April 19, 2019, the City of Santa Monica changed parking restrictions for two parking spaces from 3 hour metered parking to a 15-minute loading zone from 6 pm to 10 pm (Pauker 2019). The Downtown Santa Monica Business Improvement District placed an informational sign next to the formal posted signage that read “Mobile Delivery Parking Only” and “10 Minute Maximum” (see Figure 2). The city’s stated objectives for this pilot were to reduce blocking of the bike lane and double parking in the pilot area, improve active transportation convenience and safety, and to provide dedicated curb space for CNS and transportation network company (TNC, ridehail) activity (Pauker 2019).

Figure 2: Mobile Delivery Parking Zone, City of Santa Monica (photo by Juan Matute) 7 Item 16.E
09/12/23
77 of 90 Item 16.E
09/12/23

8.K.a
Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: Written Comments (6023 : Protected bike lanes) For parking enforcement officers to have authority to issue citations to automobiles violating use or time limits, Santa Monica’s curb management pilot needed to be consistent with state law and local code. California state law restricts the use of shorter-term white curb markings to the loading and unloading of passengers or depositing mail in a mailbox. Pickup of prepared foods for delivery meets neither criteria, and is classified as “loading or unloading of freight” under California Vehicle Code § 21458(a)(2), requiring a yellow curb zone with a time limit specified by the local jurisdiction. Santa Monica’s existing loading zone ordinance specifies that vehicles should park in yellow zones no longer than is “necessary to load or unload materials, freight, or passengers, and in no event longer than 15 minutes” (SMMC 3.12.740 1980). The City did not amend this ordinance for the curb management pilot.

2. Methods
The research team placed an observational camera, collected video of the pilot zone and adjacent roadway operation, manually coded this video, and then analyzed the results.